It might be legitimate smoke or just the hot summer air of the peanut gallery, but conference realignment talk is still percolating in the wake of University of Oklahoma President David Boren’s comments last month about wanting Big 12 expansion. Lee Barfknecht of the Omaha World-Herald reported that five Big 12 schools approached the Big Ten back in 2010 (intimating that they were Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State and Texas A&M) about joining forces with Jim Delany. Today, Berry Tramel of The Oklahoman (essentially OU’s home newspaper) explained why Nebraska would never leave the Big Ten and noted that OU was “thrilled at the prospect of joining a conference that included the likes of Stanford and Cal-Berkeley” when it was considering the Pac-12. Finally, Dick Weiss (a Naismith Hall of Fame inductee for sportswriting as opposed to a plebeian blogger like myself) “casually” Tweeted the following on Monday:
Weiss has been on the conference realignment beat before as he was one of the first to report about the “Catholic 7” breaking away from the Big East and then forming… the Big East.
Edit: Weiss has clarified his Tweet:
I don’t position this blog as a newsbreaking site, but I have heard from a knowledgeable person with extensive contacts with current and former Big 12 members (i.e. knew specific details about Nebraska heading to the Big Ten and Texas A&M to the SEC beforehand that couldn’t have been simply guessed from the news) that basically had this to say: Oklahoma isn’t happy with the Big 12 and wants to get out.
Putting aside all of the valid issues of whether the Big 12’s grant of rights agreement can be broken or whether Oklahoma could politically leave Oklahoma State behind (both of which need to be cleared before any moves are even possible), it doesn’t seem as though OU wants to stand pat. David Boren’s comments about wanting Big 12 expansion with the “right schools” was more of a warning shot to the rest of the league because, frankly, the “right schools” wouldn’t ever take a Big 12 invite. As a result, everyone in Sooners land seems to agree on the overarching desire to leave the Big 12, but there are two mindsets within the school: the academic wishes of Boren and the athletic interests of OU Athletic Director Joe Catiglione. (Emphasis that these are currently mindsets that could take years to play out – please don’t interpret anything here as “Oklahoma is leaving for Conference X by the end of the year.”) Boren, not surprisingly, wants a more academic league, but it seems as though his focus is more on the Pac-12 as opposed to the Big Ten as of now. That’s not to say that OU wouldn’t consider the Big Ten (as it did in 2010), but there are still apparently concerns that the B1G would find OU to be academically acceptable. In contrast, the Pac-12 would like Oklahoma if they came with, say, Kansas. The West Coast league just doesn’t want an OU/Oklahoma State expansion (which is what OU had offered back in 2011 in the wake of Texas A&M bolting the Big 12 for the SEC). Meanwhile, the athletic side of the school would relish going to the SEC. Once again, the SEC would take Oklahoma in a heartbeat without Oklahoma State coming along. The SEC would likely prefer Kansas, as well, provided that the biggest dog of them all of Texas rejects their overtures.
Ah yes – Texas. The Longhorns aren’t oblivious to their rivals to the north. In a perfect world for Texas (as described to me by my Big 12 guy), they would want to join the ACC as full members with… wait for it… Notre Dame. Apparently, the UT people are convinced that the new College Football Playoff system will eventually drive the Irish to join a conference and Texas wants to be right alongside them. In turn, UT would also have Oklahoma and Kansas follow along to create an 18-school ACC behemoth. Texas would be fine with the same type of move to the Big Ten (although Notre Dame is contractually obligated to join the ACC if it chooses to drop independence until 2027, which would seemingly make that prospect impossible). The new Texas leadership doesn’t have the West Coast preference that their leaders circa 2010 had, so any new deal with the Pac-12 seems to be out. At the same time, the SEC continues to be simply a non-starter for the Longhorns.
Personally, I reflexively reject the viability of any realignment move predicated on Notre Dame joining a conference as a football member, where we might as well say that Texas would be willing to join the MAC if Notre Dame comes along with them. Also, the Irish would have 100% made a 4-team playoff in a year like 2012, so I consider any supposed South Bend-based worries about the CFP system to be false hopes for Texas partisans. Until I see actual consternation from Notre Dame itself about today’s college football world, they are going to be an immovable object. In that sense, it seems as though the smoke from Texas is more of a “If we get the PITCH PERFECT deal to move, then sure, we’ll move.”
Contrast this with Oklahoma, where they appear to be making public comments and private moves to put themselves in position to bolt from the Big 12 with merely a passable offer (as opposed to the perfect one that Texas would require). It then becomes a matter of whether it’s worth the risk of breaking the Big 12’s grant of rights of agreement with unpredictable damages claims (which I wrote about a couple of years ago) and/or any political fallout if Oklahoma proactively leaves the Big 12 without Oklahoma State.
If I were running the Big Ten, it’s time to take advantage of one of those rare moments where a national football brand name is essentially begging for offers. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: if we assume that Texas, Notre Dame and ACC schools are off the table, then the single most valuable expansion that the Big Ten can have at this point is adding Oklahoma and Kansas. These are two of the most elite blue blood brand names in college football and college basketball, respectively, and their small markets on-paper compared to Eastern options are irrelevant when they can effectively turn the Big Ten Network into a legit national network instead of a mostly regional one (which may become more important as cable cord cutting continues and the TV industry starts moving toward an a la carte or at least less-than-basic cable model). Also note that Kansas actually had the highest third tier TV rights revenue of any Big 12 school prior to the formation of the Longhorn Network, so it has been shown that the BTN can basically charge any price within KU’s market (and presumably OU’s market) and garner a ton of more revenue even with fewer households on paper.
Finally, I’m as much of a Big Ten academic snob as anyone, but Oklahoma’s academic reputation rankings have long been right in line with Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri and Iowa State despite OU never having had membership in the Association of American Universities. If the Big Ten is fine with Nebraska no longer being an AAU member from an academic standpoint, then that should make any concerns about OU’s academics much less of a roadblock. The prospect of Oklahoma and Kansas moving within the next few years is simply much more likely than schools like Virginia and North Carolina leaving the ACC within the next generation, so an OU/KU combo is the best viable expansion option for the Big Ten by far as of today.
(Image from KOTV)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Iowa over OU in the B1G West brought to you by Roundup.
LikeLike
Rock chalk and go bucks
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oklahoma’s boosters are hollering for the SEC. They have a grass roots movement pushing to go southeast. The B1G idea was popular 4 years ago down there. Times have definitely changed at OU.
LikeLike
@Pony – That wouldn’t surprise me, but boosters are inherently athletics-focused (and at a place like OU, specifically football-focused) people. The university president is really who would make the ultimate decision (and Boren seems to be independent-minded enough to not be simply a lackey for boosters).
LikeLike
Boren is nobody’s lackey. But he is a politician with serious money issues coming from a very large group of his donors and valued season ticket holders who are shouting for the home schedule the SEC would bring to Norman. He has projects he needs to see funded. For the fans the travel is far better going southeast as opposed to the behemoth distances that would be encountered in the B1G. The home schedule the B1G brings to Norman is also widely thought to be underwhelming to OU fans who consider SEC football more exciting. Boren has a ton of money and funding waiting for him as soon as OU to the SEC happens.
LikeLike
Boren will do the smart thing and go with the academic route.
LikeLike
He’s probably feeling the pinch from alumni that didn’t like the way he handled the SAE incident (as compared to some football players). Maybe OU to the SEC is a way to get more $ from some to make up for any losses from others (maybe even the same donors).
LikeLike
Any conference OU leaves for will be better academically and athletically. When the Big12 lost the schools it lost, it dropped down to last out of the power5 conferences.
LikeLike
Have to agree with Pony on this one. The overwhelming sentiment by fans and boosters is the Sooners need to go to the SEC West. PAC12South is the next most desired by fans followed by a few academicians who pine for the B1G. Also. The SEC has several institutions ranked ahead of the Sooners academically. Shouldn’t be a problem joining the SEC West for the few professors wanting the B1G academic cred. Also, OU has great regional affinity and relationship with A&M and Arkansas. Missouri should be in the SEC West too and you have a lot of Oklahoma’s old partners.
LikeLike
Certainly a plurality of fans want the SEC. But I believe that is followed by the B10 (my preference) and then the P10. Also, se don’t have an affinity for A&M or Missouri that even approaches that of NU and we’ve only played Arkansas like twice over the last 50 years – no affinity there. Most of the fans I discuss this with want the SEC because they want to play Alabama, Auburn, Florida, and Georgia. Ask them about Missouri and they say “wtf”? Nobody here cares about Missouri.
LikeLike
Of course, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia and Florida would be in the other division and you would never see them.
LikeLike
“Of course, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia and Florida would be in the other division and you would never see them.”
The way SEC geography works, it seems obvious that Oklahoma would be in the East.
LikeLike
I wonder if this will be a move similar to the TAMU move. If Oklahoma is willing to move without Texas…or Nebraska…we are in a brave new world.
LikeLike
FrankTheTank-
Any chance Mizzou would come to the B1G or has that ship sailed? Would love to see Mizzou, Boomer Sooner, and KU Jayhawks in Big Ten
Go Hawkeyes!
Kinnick24
LikeLike
Git-er-done!
LikeLike
A couple Texas insiders on Orangebloods also point out that Texas’ second choice after the Big 12 would be the ACC, but I’m still having trouble buying that. The closest team would be Georgia Tech in Atlanta, I think. The distance just wouldn’t make sense and would be horrible for the non-football sports.
I like the idea of Texas and OU to the B1G to strengthen the West and even out the divisions, but my first choice would be SEC. Considering the SEC now has more top academic institutions than the Big 12, that excuse can be thrown out. Rampant SEC cheating is also cited as a reason Texas won’t consider the SEC, but I haven’t seen any proof of that outside of the occasional Cam Newton story.
LikeLike
@Christian in Wylie – Under UT’s optimal scenario, OU and KU would also head to the ACC with them, which would mitigate the distance issue. Granted, if anything is predicated on Notre Dame joining the ACC as a full member, then I’m not buying it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Three more schools to the ACC? What are they aiming for, 24?
LikeLike
@greg – I guess if you can add Texas and Notre Dame, you just roll with it.
LikeLike
If OU and KU came along with UT…I think that would make it a reasonable geography. Without them…the Longhorns would truly be stuck way out in left field. I just don’t see it happening without a couple other b12 defections.
LikeLike
I don’t buy it either. I know Dodds talked to that group in Longview about the ACC, but I don’t think anyone-fans, academics or administration has any interest in the ACC. I think that was merely a bluff for OU’s benefit.
OU, Notre Dame, Kansas, Texas and what other 5 in a division? BC, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, VT? Even with a ND type deal, you are going a long distance nearly all the time.
Its a good match for Notre Dame, not for Texas. There are no schools like Texas in the ACC.
The Big 10 has a different problem. The schools are very much like Texas. But the sports match is awful. The Big 10 is excellent at winter sports and not good in most spring sports. Texas doesn’t do wrestling or hockey or lacrosse.
LikeLike
bullet,
“The Big 10 has a different problem. The schools are very much like Texas. But the sports match is awful. The Big 10 is excellent at winter sports and not good in most spring sports. Texas doesn’t do wrestling or hockey or lacrosse.”
UT has a rodeo team, doesn’t it? If they can wrestle steers, they can wrestle people. Most of the B10 doesn’t do hockey or lacrosse, so that’s no issue.
LikeLike
If KU and OU go B1G, where does it leave K-State and Okie State, or the other six left behind? I don’t see them keen on remaining in a Big 12 – 4, although they could replenish (in numbers at least) with Cincinnati, Houston, Central Florida and South Florida. Might Texas go Pac, provided it agrees to accept Texas Tech as a partner?
LikeLike
@vp19 – My guess is that, like the Big East after Miami, VT and BC left, the left behind schools would replenish their ranks and be a “best of the rest” conference. I can’t see Texas staying in a Big 12 that doesn’t have Oklahoma, so what they do is interesting. Like I’ve said before, it wouldn’t surprise me if Texas sought a Notre Dame-style independence deal with the ACC in that scenario.
LikeLike
Would the left behind schools start issuing a lawsuit against the schools trying to leave? As I see it, they should have expanded adding schools like Cincinnati, memphis, UCF, USF and so forth. The schools listed in the previous expansion discussions do have strong academics that are close or better than OU’s academics. UCF from what I have seen is ahead of OU in the rankings. Cincinnati, U. Conn., U. Mass. and others including Colorado State and North Dakota State, even New Mexico’s academics is nothing to sneeze at. I do not think OU wants to put Oklahoma State in the best of the rest conference. Like I said if the schools leave? Have the Big 12 without West Virginia to merge with the MWC to make MWC a lot stronger. MWC at times are much better than some of the P5 conference in football in some years, plus any of the MWC schools can pull off upsets on any P5 conference schools. Some of the G5 schools do make more money than some P5 schools in the ACC with ticket sales and all that.
LikeLike
Would the left behind schools start issuing a lawsuit against the schools trying to leave?
The left-behind schools (assuming this happens) don’t need to sue. They have a grant of media rights. It’s the departing schools that would need to sue, unless they are willing to earn zero for their home games, for the duration of the grant, which still has many years left to run.
LikeLike
I bought this line of reasoning a few weeks ago too, Frank. But then I came back to the “Texas-centric” world in which Texas lives. Having 40% of Olympic games happening outside of Texas (which is inevitable if UT went to the ACC in Olympic sports like ND) would really be distasteful to the UT folks.
I think they’ll keep a weak-but-heavy-in-Texas conference afloat as long as possible. For example, if OU and KU go B1G…then they’ll backload with Houston and Cincy/BYU to get to 10. If OkSt and Baylor/WVU go to the SEC, they might just stay at 8. Yes, their 7 game conference schedule will be weak…but then they can have a stronger OOC schedule to boost their brand (how about UCLA, Ohio State, and OU-type foes each year?).
I think they’d be happy with an 8-team Big 12 before they sent their women’s soccer team to Boston College every season in the ACC.
LikeLike
All that youcanleave behind. There is a greater chance that Baylor and WVU gain admission to the B1G than to the SEC.
LikeLike
“Having 40% of Olympic games happening outside of Texas (which is inevitable if UT went to the ACC in Olympic sports like ND) would really be distasteful to the UT folks.”
The ACC is very strong in Basketball & pretty strong in Baseball, the 2 non-football sports they care about the most. If they could pull off an independent football schedule, I think they’d be fine with the travel for those sports. The quality of the home games would increase.
LikeLike
Everybody is quick to talk about the SOUTHERN ACC’s baseball when these talks come up…but the ACC also has Pitt/Syracuse/BC/VaTech…which seem a lot less desirable. I know WVU is already on a huge island in the Big 12…but that was their only choice. I just can’t see Texas CHOOSING to be on that big of an island.
LikeLike
Insignificant difference.
LikeLike
If KU and OU go B1G, where does it leave K-State and Okie State, or the other six left behind? I don’t see them keen on remaining in a Big 12….
They wouldn’t be keen, but what choice would they have? I agree with Frank: they’d do what the Big East did, and replenish with the best of the available mid-majors.
Might Texas go Pac, provided it agrees to accept Texas Tech as a partner?
I don’t really see what Texas gets out of Pac membership. I would see Texas going Independent, placing their Olympic sports in what’s left of the Big XII, and having a scheduling agreement much like what ND has now with the ACC. The remaining Big XII teams would obviously not be happy with that, but again, what choice do they have?
As Darth Vader once said: “I am altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further.”
LikeLike
I would say the remaining members would come together (because it still would be a better destination than the AAC and the Mountain West) to reform the conference, The remaining members:
1.) K-State
2.) TCU
3,) Baylor
4.) West Virginia
5.) Oklahoma St.
6.) Iowa State
7.) Texas Tech
would add enough schools, not only enough schools to get back to 10, but they would go to at least 12 depending on the circumstances. The conference would add:
8.) BYU
9.) Cincinnati
10.) Houston (to replace Texas)
11.) UConn
12.) UCF
These additions would give the conference major tv markets, expand the conference footprint (for a conference network perhaps?), and new recruiting grounds in Ohio and Florida.
Now, of course, if Okie State and WVU jumped to the SEC, then Memphis and Boise St. could replace them to maintain 12 members. Or they could add them:
13.) Memphis
14.) Boise St.
If those teams decided to expand even farther, I would suggest
15.) Colorado St.
16.) San Diego State
LikeLike
I like both Oklahoma and Kansas but I think the geography is bit of a stretch. If you look at a US Map it would seem like Oklahoma is so far from the rest of the B1G footprint. Kansas and Missouri would fit nicely but not sure that combo works from a revenue and athletic standpoint.
I think Kansas fits the B1G from a culture standpoint but not sure about Oklahoma. Would they feel like outsiders or an outlier? The Geography is the biggest issue.
LikeLike
I like both Oklahoma and Kansas but I think the geography is bit of a stretch. If you look at a US Map it would seem like Oklahoma is so far from the rest of the B1G footprint.
In that part of the country, the distances are so vast that all of the varsity teams fly anyway, other than maybe when they face Oklahoma State. Once you have to get in the airplane, travel time is dominated by factors other than the flight itself (travel to/from the airport, security, loading and unloading baggage, etc.).
Cultural differences are a very different story. You also wonder how it would affect them from a recruiting standpoint, when they’re no longer playing four games a year vs. Texas teams.
LikeLike
BigWest would be Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Northwestern. Not too far out of whack.
LikeLike
Kevin, you’re right. The B1G would be a horrible cultural and geographical for for the Sooners. Keep the Big XII together or just go the SEC West already. Those are the best options for OU and it’s fans, and most importantly, the student athletes.
LikeLike
Let’s address the something that remains a mystery.
OU had the opportunity to leave with UT to P12 but that melted down. So why now? LHN you may say. But LHN was in place when TAMU departed and there was a five week period where SEC #14 was yet to be resolved. I have difficulty believing that if OU had desired that option that it would not be OU in the SEC today rather than Mizzou.
Either OU has reached the conclusion they got the LHN thing wrong or they are looking around see three old-time rivals are gone along with one of the two school the inspired the Big 8 to become 12 and don’t care for that, or something else is at play.
Maybe it is purely academics. Maybe they have good reason to think UT is looking to bail. Maybe like UT, the SEC didn’t fit their vision of who they want as peers.
I wonder if the change is not so much that OU has had an awakening of interest in Big 10 but rather Big 10 (or at least some members) have concluded that OU is a close enough fit academically that they are interested in OU, something easier to do once non-AAU Nebraska became settled in.
With the GOR, I feel confident ESPN and Fox are going to hold OU’s rights via the Big XII contract until the contract expires. I doubt however that Big XII will successfully hold said rights for that period without giving some portion of the distribution to OU. Just too likely that complete forfeiture is deemed a penalty.
The other great unspoken is this. Why is KU silent? Kansas is a natural. Already AAU. Massive brand in basketball and for all the drive the best touting, basketball is very valuable to conference networks. Is OU’s vocal response an indication that Kansas is on the path and OU wants to join?
LikeLike
The other great unspoken is this. Why is KU silent?
Maybe because Kansas knows it cannot be a first mover. They have to tag along with someone else.
LikeLike
Because KU has already agreed to a move to the B1G. Complete silence = nondisclosure agreement in place.
LikeLike
OU had the opportunity to leave with UT to P12 but that melted down. So why now? LHN you may say. But LHN was in place when TAMU departed and there was a five week period where SEC #14 was yet to be resolved. I have difficulty believing that if OU had desired that option that it would not be OU in the SEC today rather than Mizzou.
It could very will be that if OU could have those five weeks back, they’d be in the SEC today. At the time, I don’t think they wanted to be separated from Texas and Oklahoma State. If they moved by themselves, it would almost certainly not be possible to keep both rivalries as annual games.
The Pac didn’t want OU/OSU unless it was also getting UT/TT, and that fell apart because of the LHN. At that point, Boren suggested that the Big XII cement their relationship with a grant of rights, which all of the remaining members agreed to. And ESPN told the Big XII that the wouldn’t lose any TV money, as long as they had at least 10 members.
Boren may regret signing onto that deal, but back then he was satisfied, or claimed to be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They’re losing. And to Oklahoma St., TCU and Baylor.
That seems to be what’s going on. He’s getting some pressure from boosters.
The OU fans deny it, but if they were where they were from 1999-2010, there wouldn’t be any complaints.
Frankly, I think OU to the SEC is a bad deal for both sides. There is such a thing as being too strong a conference. See DePaul (and others) in the Big East.
LikeLike
Frank, if you read Dick Weiss’ twitter, he retracted his realignment tweet:
Here’s his exact tweet:
Info on big 12 comes fr fox sports column not fox sports guys just throwing it out there sorry for confusion
LikeLike
@hawkfan – Yes, I just saw that and have updated the blog post accordingly.
LikeLike
In other words-Clay Travis.
He would get far better info quoting the Dude of West Virginia.
LikeLike
As I recall, Boren was one of the first Big XII presidents to agitate publicly for a grant of rights, which obviously limits his options now.
Did he screw the pooch, or has something dramatically changed, such that only a few short years later he is already looking for the exits?
LikeLike
Internal money problems and lack of faith from donors about a bright future ahead generated the change in opinion rather quickly. This in light of the massive funding needed for his 3 giant projects he has to get paid for asap.
LikeLike
Let’s Do It !! OU and KU.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Big 12 is about to fall apart, eh? That’s what they get for adding TCU. Don’t they pay attention to anything?
@Frank – fwiw, David Boren (D-Bo to his fans) has a massive hard-on for China. He’s instituted all sorts of programs for building ties there – lots of Chinese students come to OU, lots of OU students spend a semester in China, OU Press publishes a series on Chinese lit., etc. He might see the Pac as a way to build on that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Killer Frogs–Definitely got me laughing!
LikeLike
Frank, if the COPC decides to pursue OU and KU, you think they’re going to go full throttle to try to get it done before renegotiating the Tier 1 deal? I mean, that’s the point of adding programs, right? Seems like a ridiculously tight timeframe unless talks are already farther along than any of us know.
LikeLike
A lot of dominoes would need to fall perfectly, in order for the B1G to have #15 and #16 sewn up before they have to sign a new media deal.
No school has ever left a conference with a grant of rights. Although any contract is breakable at some price, that price is unknown right now, since it has never happened before. Unless all of the remaining Big XII members surprisingly allowed OU and KU to leave “for free” (and why would they?), it could take years for that to be resolved.
LikeLike
Marc,
Do you think OU and KU are worth the risk? By that I mean would their addition to the BIG be worth the wait and financial penalties to bring them on before the Tier 1 deal gets worked on?
Having said that, I suppose there is a risk with the new Tier ! rights deal too, given what is going on in the industry right now.
Although I would hate to decimate another conference, OU and KU are true prizes that may necessitate a move sooner than later… Wow, KU hoops in the BIG! That would be something…
LikeLike
Do you think OU and KU are worth the risk?
I truly have no idea…and I’ve never seen an estimate from someone with sufficient expertise to know, or even to give a highly informed guess — as opposed to a fan just speculating.
But I can’t emphasize enough, this is untrodden ground. No school has ever left a league with a grant of rights in place.
LikeLike
Fair enough…
I guess there is no real way to monetize all the potential revenue that would result from a move like that.
LikeLike
Networks pay the conferences though and if a network wants to “move assets” to benefit them, they will sign off on the moves (aka waivers) to get out of the GOR and the conferences can settle a payment for the contract.
LikeLike
Networks pay the conferences though and if a network wants to “move assets” to benefit them, they will sign off on the moves (aka waivers) to get out of the GOR and the conferences can settle a payment for the contract.
In theory, yes. But with ESPN losing subscribers due to cord-cutting, would they be willing to continue to pay the Big XII the same as they pay today—without Oklahoma and Kansas—and then on top of that give the Big Ten the bump they need to justify adding two more members?
I’d love to see the math on that. It seems awfully unlikely.
LikeLike
I don’t think it would be that simple. While the Big 12 and Big Ten might both have contracts with Fox and ESPN, the rights are actually still owned by the conference. Neither ESPN nor Fox could move Oklahoma or Kansas’s rights from the Big 12 contract to a Big Ten one without the Big 12 signing off on that. In theory, it could continue to broadcast Kansas/Oklahoma games under the Big 12 contract even after they went to the Big Ten, but that brings us to a bigger issue.
I think it’s also very unlikely that ESPN or Fox will play along with this. If Kansas and Oklahoma leave, then so does Texas and possibly one or two more. Since no conference expands without accepting more money (at least to break even), ESPN/Fox would have to agree to pay the Big Ten more. However, it would also have to continue Big 12 payments where they are. A Big 12 without it’s major players though is only worth a fraction of what it is getting now. It’s a lot cheaper for the networks if the Big 12 just sticks together.
LikeLike
On the other hand, if the recent moves by ESPN (belt tightening) really do point to them knowing that the cable subscription apocalypse is on its way, they may be quite willing to let the BigXII implode to get them out of their contract.
LikeLike
Maryland signed but then broke the ACC’s GOR. Right?
LikeLike
No Maryland was never part of the ACC grant of rights. There was an exit penalty that was voted to be increased about a year before they left, but the grant of rights did not come about till after Maryland announced it was leaving.
LikeLike
Also, they ended up not paying the exit penalty and forfeited their conference revenue sharing instead. That was substantially less than the exit penalty, something over $30M rather than $50M.
LikeLike
President Boren is 74, so I suspect he wants to settle this issue in the next year or two before he retires. Clear that he wants to park OU in the Pac-12 or B1G.
LikeLike
Oklahoma will end up in the Big 12 or Pac-12 with a most likely landing spot in the B1G. Academics will win over athletics.
LikeLike
Hope you’re wrong. B1G would be a bad cultural and geographical fit for the Sooners and its fans and student athletes. Plus, I don’t think you guys (who are not Okies) realize the political fallout of OU trying to separate from Oklahoma State. Unlike Texas and A&M, Oklahomans actually like one another. Very difficult to separate.
LikeLike
Unless the PAC truly has said the ’10 four pack offer is off the table, that is the most logical destination and/or reason to not stay in the B12.
All the talk has been about membership changes and not the reasons. Boren said competitive disadvantage implying need of ccg which currently requires expansion. Seems a straight forward speak/warning in support of ccg deregulation. Follow that with multiple coaches (several ACC, the conference co sponsoring deregulation) crying about uneven playing field (ND) because of lack of 13th opponent.
Actual P5 realignment won’t be approaching until the mid ’20s.
Unless the LHN goes away early, it might not happen then.
LikeLike
In order for the B12 Gor to kick in, 6 schools would have to leave.
So. 5 Universities can head where they choose if, Fox/ESPN go along..
Fox knows OU & Kansas would add mega bucks to next BIG TV deal in 2017.
LikeLike
The Big12 GOR has already “kicked in” … the rights have been granted to the conference for the set period of time. The school can leave the contract and stop providing content for the conference contract (and for that reason stop being paid by the conference), but the media rights for the home games of the school continue to reside with the conference.
LikeLike
GEAUX Tigers!
LikeLike
Go B1G Red
LikeLike
Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma to the B1G. Get it done!
LikeLike
My source says Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and Rice are moving together to the B1G. But my dog has been wrong before.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“But my dog has been wrong before.”
Not any more than most of the rest of us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Too much smoke. Clearly the gears are in motion. As to the question of ‘Why now?’ the B1G’s media deal is the only semi-plausible answer. It just feels like Boren setting the table for something.
LikeLike
I know many Oklahoma fans are concerned about recruiting. I am not sure it will be a big deal. They are 3 hours away from Dallas. The parents of the kids from Texas can drive to see their son play 6 or 7 games per year at home plus the RRR in Texas as I don’t think that goes away in any scenario.
LikeLike
If the B1G goes to 16 watch for the other two of the two super power conferences to swoop in and start picking the bones of the Big XII. I can see the SEC grabbing WVU and TCU (Dallas TV market), the Pac-12 with few legitimate options left expand with Texas Tech, OSU and KSU. Texas then is given the option to join and if they don’t add Baylor. The Pac-12 doesn’t have many options to choose from and taking Big XII teams beats their other option, taking MWC teams.
Also once you lose 80% of your conference the GoR and Big XII ceases to be. Unfortunately for Iowa St in this circumstance would have to choose between the AAC and MWC.
LikeLike
So you basically think that the collapse of the Big 12 would lead to the SEC and Pac-12 both taking teams that they very obviously don’t want? Good luck with that one.
PS to clarify, the other option for the Pac-12 and SEC would be to take zero current Big 12 teams and stand pat (the SEC always has the long term “raid the ACC” option as well)
LikeLike
In the scenario where OU/KU go to the Big Ten, there are some decent arguments for the Pac-12 to consider TT, OSU, and KSU, with or without Texas. The Pac-12 could use inventory outside of their main time zone, and if they don’t take those schools, they are out of options. On the other hand, those schools have nowhere else to go, so the Pac-12 can take its time to figure that out. It wouldn’t happen all at once.
I can see no reason at all why the SEC would want WVU or TCU. The SEC is in a position of strength. If they ever expand, they will be very choosy. They aren’t going to take the leftovers, just to help out schools that wish the Big XII GOR would go away.
LikeLike
Yeah, as much as I love my Frogs, I don’t see the SEC biting. If they want another Texas school, and they can’t get UT, there’s Tech. The SEC can schedule more neutral-site match-ups at Jerry World if they want a DFW presence. Assuming the Big 12 goes tits up, my hope for the Frogs is the ACC. They seem cool with private, marginally religiously affiliated universities. They added BC not too long ago, and that’s about as close to an analog of TCU as you can find. It’s a longshot, but so was the Big 12 three years ago. Maybe if the ACC loses a couple more schools.
LikeLike
Yes, Texas Tech seems like a more live option for the SEC than TCU.
LikeLike
Lubbock or Dallas, which one would be better for the SECN?
LikeLike
You mean, cameras located in Lubbock or cameras located in Dallas? SECN likely doesn’t care where their cameras are located … they care where their viewers are located. And TCU is not going to be generating a lot of viewers in Dallas unless they are having a really good year.
LikeLike
A&M would throw a fit about Tech. They might not mind the Frogs as much. They wanted to separate themselves from the Techs and Houstons. TCU being private could be an advantage while still getting a stronger piece of DFW.
On the other hand, WVU and TCU don’t seem worth it to the SEC who would want 15 & 16 reserved for better options.
LikeLike
A&M provides a DFW presence already. No need to add another Texas school to the SEC. OU would be a smart addition but it might make more sense to stand pat.
LikeLike
Who says the SEC would take teams it doesn’t want? Having a team in Houston and Dallas means you own a big chunk of the state of Texas. Also WVU is a perfect fit for the SEC and by killing off the Big XII you don’t have to deal with a GoR like you would with ACC teams.
Also, no matter what the Pac-12 is going to have to expand further east and if OU and KU are off the table taking Big XII teams is the best option left. They aren’t going to add Boise or Nevada so OSU and KSU are better options to them.
As you saw last time once one of the Big 3 expands the other two play catch up. No one wants to be left behind. We’ve seen all three take from the Big XII and we will see them do that again, this time finally putting this conference out of it’s misery.
LikeLike
WVU is a perfect fit for the SEC and by killing off the Big XII you don’t have to deal with a GoR like you would with ACC teams.
That’s a non-sequitur. The SEC can’t kill off the Big XII by taking WV.
I’m not seeing them as such a great fit, either. WV coveted an ACC invite for years, and couldn’t get in. The SEC is not in the habit of taking schools the ACC rejected.
The state of West Virginia has the lowest population of any Big XII state. They would also be the least-populous SEC state, by a wide margin.
The SEC is not especially known for its academics, but WV would be well below the academic level of most SEC institutions.
If you lived anywhere near me, I’d buy you a steak dinner if WV ever found its way into the SEC.
LikeLike
Iowa State kicked out of the P5 while Wake stays in? Don’t see that happening without a fight.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Iowa State kicked out of the P5 while Wake stays in? Don’t see that happening without a fight.
What happens to ISU and what happens to Wake are totally independent of one another. There are a number of P5 teams that probably wouldn’t get into their conferences if they were being built from scratch. That doesn’t mean they get kicked out.
If ISU gets left holding the bag, it doesn’t mean the ACC suddenly realizes that they don’t need Wake anymore.
LikeLike
Cincy got kicked out and they are better than half the ACC and better than at least 2 me,bers from each P5 conference. Shit happens sometimes.
LikeLike
Cincy got kicked out. . . .
No one actually “kicked them out” of anything. Like numerous other members of the old Big East, they did not get an invitation. There was nothing they were ever IN that they got kicked out of.
LikeLike
They got kicked out in the sense of vp19’s comment … Iowa State would not be kicked out of the Big12 in “Iowa State kicked out of the P5” … they’d just be a member of a conference at risk of being kicked out of the Power conferences in the next negotiation of the CFP.
LikeLike
If the B1G could add OU football and KU hoops before the new TV deal is signed……imagine how many more dollars the Big Ten could ask for/demand with those two properties.
LikeLike
Probably $4 billion to $7 billion for 10 years.
LikeLike
UConn still is a great option for the BIG
LikeLike
UConn still is a great option for the BIG.
UConn satisfies practically none of the B1G’s known criteria. They don’t deliver a major sports market. They do not reside in an important recruiting territory. They don’t have a great football program. They don’t have a great stadium (by B1G standards). They aren’t contiguous to the current B1G footprint. They aren’t in the AAU. Even the ACC rejected them.
UConn does have a great basketball program…but Kansas has a better one. On top of that, Kansas is in the AAU and provides a geographic bridge to Oklahoma. If the B1G wants what UConn has to offer, they might as well add Kansas, which is equal or better in practically every dimension.
LikeLike
Agree with all of this. As far as the ACC goes, my understanding is that BC has been the roadblock for UConn. UConn’s all-around sports program lines up more neatly with the ACC (strong basketball and soccer programs for both genders) than almost any other school you could think of. Football is not great, though.
LikeLike
As far as the ACC goes, my understanding is that BC has been the roadblock for UConn.
That could be, but if the ACC really wanted UConn, do you think BC all by itself could stand in the way?
LikeLike
Which would get FSU and Clemson leaning toward any available add that has better prospects in football … as when the ACC last was looking and ended up with Louisville.
LikeLike
Yeah but you forgot that they have great seafood. So there.
LikeLike
You can see why my ACC buddies want nothing to do with Connecticut, its nouveau riche fan base or its former ambulance-chasing attorney general turned U.S. senator. Let the evil empire of women’s basketball wither on the vine in the AAC.
LikeLiked by 1 person
U.Conn is ahead on the academic ratings than OU. So, that arguement is out the window. They are even higher than Nebraska. Now, we need to remember that basketball is not the real money maker in making moves. I see no reason for any conferences to add Kansas since they bring no value to football. North Dakota State has a much better football product than Kansas. Kansas is just as bad as U.Conn in football.
LikeLike
Your argument is jumbled … U Conn may be ahead of OkU in academics … but its not academics that is OkU’s calling card, its FB. And then when you looked at Kansas, suddenly academics was forgotten, but when Kansas and UConn are compared, the most striking difference is that Kansas has a higher academic status.
LikeLike
Actually Oklahoma (#82 $258m R&D expenditures) is ahead of Connecticut (#86,.$242m) in research rankings – source NFS.
For comparison Nebraska comes in #81, $266m, and Kansas #74, $298m.
Its raw numbers, but it says Oklahoma is acceptable and in fact a little ahead of Connecticut. In general Southern schools are moving up the list, so you see “meh” non-AAU schools like South Florida (#43), Cincy (#46), UAB (#44), NC State (#51), Georgia (#64), Miami (#67), Kentucky (#69), LSU (#76). Florida State (#83).
https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingBySource&ds=herd
Oklahoma looks far from being a basket case as far as CIC membership goes.
LikeLike
In ARWU rankings in the US (among world top 500 rankings), American Athletic and Big12 schools are:
28: UTx
65-77: Iowa State,
78-104: Cincinnati, Houston, Kansas
105-125: OkSU, OkU, Temple, Tulane, UCF, UConn,
126-146: Kansas State
Below 146: Baylor*, ECU, Memphis, SMU, TCU, TTech, Tulsa, USF, WVU
Source: http://www.shanghairanking.com/World-University-Rankings-2014/USA.html
Supplemented by Wikipedia to remember who all is in the AAC.
*Baylor School of Medicine ranked 53-64, so if Baylor & Baylor School of Medicine merged, Baylor would likely be ranked (but not likely at the 53-64 tier).
LikeLike
Mistake: Missed USF, #78-104
LikeLike
Baylor College of Medicine is unrelated to Baylor University and has been unrelated since 1969.
When Rice began discussions about merging with BCM about 5 years ago, Baylor also talked to them, but both deals got dropped. BCM is in Houston in the Texas Medical Center a quarter of a mile away from (and within site of) the Rice campus.
LikeLike
Alright, so I did a little research and think that UConn’s profile actually fits the B1G better than most people think:
Profile – large, public flagship university.
Football – sports are cyclical; if Kansas is an option based on the notion that KU football will turn it around, UConn football was actually competitive as a BCS member too. Yes, the Big East was not very good. But they do put players in the NFL and made 5 bowl games in the Big East (3-2).
Stadium – 40K is small but the stadium was built with footings already in place to expand by 10-15K. UTC just donated 25 additional acres for parking in return for naming the stadium “Pratt & Whitney Stadium”. 25 acres = 10-15K fans.
Basketball – Definitely their strength. Top 5 hoops program without question. Hard to argue with 4 national titles since 1999. That’s on par with Kentucky and Duke. Would bring New York into play for hoops (maybe MSG??). NYC is a NCAAB town, not NCAAF. There are 2 teams that matter in NYC: UConn + Syracuse. That’s it.
Hockey – just upgraded to Hockey East and were competitive (finished 9th I think). Led conference in attendance. Would be a nice addition to B1G Hockey.
Academics – no, not AAU and that is a real detriment. But good rankings (ahead of OU and most B1G schools) and the state of CT just gave them $1.5 BILLION to expand research. That’s serious financial backing and commitment.
Market – Hartford/New Haven is #30 (Kansas City is #31). Part of CT is actually located inside the NYC DMA, which probably shifts the entire state of CT up to around 20-25th. As mentioned before, NYC is a NCAAB town and UConn is heavily followed there. I think Tom Izzo called Madison Square Garden “UConn South” before their game last year.
UConn by itself is not overly attractive for the B1G. But pair them with someone like OU (or better yet, OU + Texas + Kansas!), and we could do MUCH worse. Actually, it would be hard to do much better if we got all 4.
LikeLike
“Academics – no, not AAU and that is a real detriment. But good rankings (ahead of OU and most B1G schools) and the state of CT just gave them $1.5 BILLION to expand research. That’s serious financial backing and commitment.”
Only if by “ahead of most” you mean behind all (AWRU):
#17: TSUN
#18: Wisconsin
#20: Northwestern
#22: Minnesota
#30: Maryland
#34: Rutgers
#37: Penn State
#38: Purdue
#40: OSU
#53-64 (in alphabetical order): Indiana, MSU, Illinois, Iowa,
#78-104: Nebraska
#105-125: UConn
LikeLike
Alright, so I did a little research and think that UConn’s profile actually fits the B1G better than most people think:
Profile – large, public flagship university.
Check. You got that one right.
Football – sports are cyclical; if Kansas is an option based on the notion that KU football will turn it around, UConn football was actually competitive as a BCS member too. Yes, the Big East was not very good. But they do put players in the NFL and made 5 bowl games in the Big East (3-2).
College sports aren’t cyclical: that’s why the same relatively small set of teams keeps winning the vast majority of the championships. If you are making the decision, you need to assume that Kansas football will continue to be terrible. UConn doesn’t have the history to suggest that their brief period of excellence in the Big East can be maintained, so they get very little credit for that, either.
Stadium – 40K is small but the stadium was built with footings already in place to expand by 10-15K.
The Big Ten generally doesn’t expand on spec. The fact it could be expanded does not mean it will be.
Basketball – Definitely their strength. Top 5 hoops program without question. Hard to argue with 4 national titles since 1999. That’s on par with Kentucky and Duke. Would bring New York into play for hoops (maybe MSG??). NYC is a NCAAB town, not NCAAF. There are 2 teams that matter in NYC: UConn + Syracuse. That’s it.
Yes, there are UConn basketball fans in NYC, but expansion decisons are mostly football driven. If you’re going to take a school mainly for basketball, you take the one that has better academics (Kansas) and that has been a basketball blueblood longer (Kansas).
Hockey – just upgraded to Hockey East and were competitive (finished 9th I think). Led conference in attendance. Would be a nice addition to B1G Hockey.
They do have hockey, but hockey doesn’t drive the expansion decision.
Market – Hartford/New Haven is #30 (Kansas City is #31).
The trouble is, there isn’t a lot of passion for UConn football. As pathetic as Kansas football has been recently, they have more accumulated goodwill, in terms of fans who’ll stick with them in the lean times. Yes, there’s a ton of passion for UConn basketball, but if you’re going to make a basketball expansion, you choose Kansas.
LikeLike
I would love to see OU join us in the B1G. As a Nebraska fan, I can honestly say that is the only series I miss. As for the rest, if they have to bring someone, I suppose KU is better than ISU, KSU, or Okie-Lite.
LikeLike
Boren’s emphasis is on the academic “club” OU is part of, with an eye toward positioning it as a possible AAU school in the future. Politically, and he is a master politician, he has two big tasks:
Make sure “little brother” OSU is unharmed, i.e., in a bolstered Big 12 that is still part of the P5.
Sell the Pac-12 or B1G to the athletic boosters who see the SEC as the gold standard conference.
Tough job to do in the two or three years or less that he probably has.
LikeLike
I think that is another reason OU wants to move now. If they cut the cord now with OSU, it will be while OSU is still in a power conference and still with Texas, most likely for another half dozen years. Its an opportunity that may not present itself again.
LikeLike
But do we have anything other than inference to establish that OU wants to move now? Saber rattling on realignment could well be putting pressure on schools to support the expansion that Boren wants. And unlike moving to the PAC-12 or Big Ten, which likely must wait until long after he has left office, if he can swing enough schools in the Big12 to his view of the correct expansion, that is something that can be executed before he leaves.
(Which is part of the reason to use the AWRU/US rankings as a proxy for OU’s assessment of academic status, since OU is pretty much all-in on China.)
LikeLike
The obvious move is TX/OU/KS & ND to the B1G, then stop. See how easy that was?
LikeLike
That’s great, but I’m not sure the Irish got the memo.
LikeLike
Who couldn’t see this coming. Over at ND Nation the ‘community’ are pissed that the ACC coaches are pressuring ND to join the conference in football. They’re mad that Swarbrick hasn’t shot back. They’re mad that their recruiting in in the toilet. They’re mad that BK (the Three Star General as they call him) isn’t going to the pros and is content with eight wins. All after one year. By the time 2020 rolls around, much less 2027, they will rue the day they hitched their wagon to the ACC. Not that they’ll wish they joined the Big Ten, mind you.
LikeLike
ND’s fanbase is delusional, but so are the fans at most major programs. Hang out on an Alabama football or Kentucky basketball message board for a while. I don’t give a damn what most of them say, and you shouldn’t either.
If University presidents start saying that ND has to join a conference full-time, then I will start to believe it might happen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NDNation was mad about the conference deal from day 1…but they still hate the B1G more. The ACC deal is not one that any Domer I know is enthused about, I’ll check with my on campus source about the current students. It’s just the least bad option. Hopefully the situation will improve by 202x…but it won’t if the BXII explodes.
LikeLike
If I were a Notre Dame fan, I wouldn’t be pleased with it either. I think there’s a good argument that the ACC got the better end of the deal. The fact that ND felt compelled to do this is a good indication of the weakness of their position, once the Big East was no longer a viable home for their non-football sports.
LikeLike
I don’t actually see that argument that the ACC got the better end of the deal. What Notre Dame needed at the time was a four game home and away FB scheduling agreement where they set the dates, and a place to place their Olympic sports. On top of that, they desired Eastern Exposure. They got the place to part their Olympic sports and a conference with BC, Syracuse with something of a BBall following in NYC, and VTech and UVA in Greater DC, all for only the cost of one more football game in the scheduling agreement than optimal for their needs.
LikeLike
CC to Mizzou then.
LikeLike
I think that Larry Scott could sell OU and Kansas to the Pac-12 presidents. And that would be a coup for the conference. . . I think what has changed for Boren is that the Big-12 botched expansion, and perhaps he has figured out how to break away from Oklahoma State.
Pac-12 will never take any other conference’s dregs. And one thing it has going for it is demographics. With ongoing population and economic growth, eventually Nevada, and possibly UNLV, will be feasible candidates for the Pac. And BYU will always be there if a #14 or #16 is ultimately needed.
LikeLike
Isn’t discovery fun?
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
I think it is a done deal. TBA after 2016
Football season. Big 12 will just fold. As it should. Big Ten and Pac 12 will expand to 16’and create a partnership of 32 team.
LikeLike
OK, if the B1G and Pac each go to 16 (adding two and four, respectively), who goes where, and what happens to the four who are left over?
LikeLike
The four that are left over did what the three that were left over in the American did: raid the next conference(s) below them to reload.
LikeLike
The only relevant question now is, what does the Dude of WV have to say about all this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
OMG that guy is a freak and a horrible fake insider.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joke.
LikeLike
Better than quoting Clay Travis like Weiss did.
And FYI-“GOR, GOR, GOR!”
And Big 12 will expand Sooner (2017 ish) rather than later and is safe until 2025. He sounds a little nervous about 2026.
LikeLike
Boren is pushing the academic angle towards the B1G…
http://newsok.com/why-nebraska-never-will-leave-the-big-ten/article/5436874
LikeLike
It is worth noting that when a conference switch is voluntary, it is almost always to a stronger conference academically than the school was in before.
And conferences, when acting voluntarily, generally do not accept a school that is markedly below their own academic average.
Obviously, this turns somewhat on the definition of “voluntary”. For instance, I would classify the ACC’s additions of Syracuse and Pitt as “voluntary” (there was no pressing existential threat that forced them to act), but their addition of Louisville as “involuntary” (Maryland was gone, and needed to be replaced immediately).
But as a general rule, conference switches tend to be an academic step up for the moving school, and tend to raise (or at least, not to greatly diminish) the academic profile of the receiving conference.
All of this is more relevant to the Big Ten than any other conference, as the league is 13/14ths AAU (and the 14th used to be). A couple of leagues have individual schools that are arguably better than any Big Ten member (Stanford, Duke), but those leagues also have the likes of Washington State and Clemson.
LikeLike
A&M and Missouri left for a conference that was weaker than the one they were in before they left. So “almost always” is a little strong.
LikeLike
Huh? Please explain.
LikeLike
If you look at rankings now, you can find some with the Big 12 slightly ahead and probably a few more with the SEC slightly ahead. But basically, not much difference. And the Big 12 was stronger with A&M and Missouri instead of TCU and WVU. And the SEC went up academically with A&M and Missouri.
Big 12 was 5/10 AAU prior to A&M and Missouri leaving and the SEC was 2/12. They still have a higher % of AAU schools (30% vs. 28%).
LikeLike
Thanks. I read your post above as a stand alone. I needed to re-read Marc Shepherd.
LikeLike
This OU noise reminds me of 2010 when Mizzou was telling anyone who would listen that they were headed to the B1G. Unfortunately for the Sooners their media numbers don’t match their football pedigree. OU going nowhere.
LikeLike
That’s right. All the Midwesterners excited about OU need to pump their breaks a bit. I think a packaged deal with OK State and the Texas state schools is much more likely. If the PAC falls through the SEC West is waiting, which the Sooner fanbase wants very much. OU would be a bad cultural fit. We don’t want to travel to Whiskey IN OUR OWN DIVISION. Too far. Hope DBo listens to alumni and fanbase and figures out how to keep us together. At least the SEC West is close and makes geographic sense.
LikeLike
AL is basically as far as WI and MS isn’t close either. I agree OU is a better cultural fit in the SEC, but don’t act like the whole SEC West is in the neighborhood.
LikeLike
” Also note that Kansas actually had the highest third tier TV rights revenue of any Big 12 school prior to the formation of the Longhorn Network”
A large part of this had to due with a credit structure that rewarded national appearances on ABC for football and CBS for basketball higher dollar amounts. KU naturally would clean up on the CBS appearances for BB. I have a feeling this over states KU’s earning power quite a bit though.
Football still drives the revenue. The NCAA tournament is $10.8 billion 14 year deal ($771 million per year, or $11.5 million per game). The college football playoff deal is $7.3 billion for 10 years $730 million per year or $243 million per game). Football drives the bus.
CBS pays the Big Ten $72 million over 6 years for a minimum of 24 games including the conference semis and final ($12 million a year, $500,000 per game). Fox is paying the conference $145 million over 6 years for the football championship game ($24.17 million per year and per game).
LikeLike
A large part of this had to due with a credit structure that rewarded national appearances on ABC for football and CBS for basketball higher dollar amounts. KU naturally would clean up on the CBS appearances for BB. I have a feeling this over states KU’s earning power quite a bit though.
@Nostradamus – Wouldn’t that be first tier money, not third tier?
LikeLike
Good call. I read that wrong and I’m still not convinced KU’s 3rd tier rights were the highest in the Big XII. I assume Frank’s source with this Kristi Dosh article. http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/05/06/school-specific-broadcasting-revenue/
And I’m still not sure she did it right. KU’s numbers on her list are right about where you’d expect them to be for their IMG contract. Nebraska’s are way off. Georgia is half of what it should’ve been based on their deal at the time, etc. I’m fairly confident KU was at least 3rd in the Big XII before Nebraska left.
KU had/has an $82 million 12 year/ $6.8 million per year deal with Host (bought out by IMG)
Nebraska had a $112.5 million for 13 years with IMG for $8.65 million a year
Texas pre LHN $94 million for 10 years with IMG for $9.4 million a year
Oklahoma $75 million 10 years with Learfield Sports for $6.33 a year
———
What it tells us is KU has drawing power in basketball which we already knew. The one thing the Big XII contract always had excess of was basketball inventory not covered by the tier 1 and 2 contracts. KU was in a position to monetize those 3rd tier games with a separate ESPN deal and a regional Time Warner deal. Obviously pre-LHN football games didn’t have the same benefit. If a game wasn’t picked you had to go through the FSN PPV process which even for the power schools only yielded a couple hundred thousand dollars.
The fact that KU basketball games had some value in Kansas and Missouri on a 3rd tier basis still doesn’t tell us anything about their value in the context of the Big Ten.
LikeLike
“Oklahoma $75 million 10 years with Learfield Sports for $6.33 a year”
75/10=?
LikeLike
Don’t know what happened there. It was $75 million over 10 years so obviously $7.5 million per year.
LikeLike
The fact that KU basketball games had some value in Kansas and Missouri on a 3rd tier basis still doesn’t tell us anything about their value in the context of the Big Ten.
I’m not really persuaded either. BTN would certainly get carriage in the state of Kansas, which is not a large market. Kansas would increase the value of the Big Ten’s basketball package, to an extent, but football is a far larger package, and for football the value of Kansas is near zero.
I know there are some sky-is-falling types who think football will someday lose its popularity, but even if you believe this, it’s certainly not true now. The Big Ten’s 2016 deal is still going to be mainly driven by football, just as the last one was, and the one before that, and the one before that.
People have been saying football is too dangerous since Teddy Roosevelt was president, and they keep playing it.
LikeLike
But they still have the third best Tier3 earnings in the Big12, after Texas and OkU.
LikeLike
Which tells us absolutely nothing about what they could potentially contribute to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Absolutely nothing? The value of the 3rd tier rights for any expansion gets added to the value of the BTN. Some of that is fairly firm in in-market fees with existing precedent, but much is driven by ad-revenue.
LikeLike
“The value of the 3rd tier rights for any expansion gets added to the value of the BTN.”
No, no it doesn’t. The bulk of KU’s 3rd tier rights i.e. radio, stadium advertising, etc. stay with them if they move to the Big Ten. The only thing that would change is their Jayhawk TV/ESPN3 deal gets bought out and folded into BTN. Is there value in that deal? Sure. How much? I don’t know. I’m doubt it is significant.
LikeLike
And just to clarify you can probably get a fairly good idea of what the Jayhawk TV deal is worth by comparing their 3rd tier rights deals to other schools. It isn’t more than a couple of million dollars.
LikeLike
If an informal vote was held by B1G schools on expansion, how would that vote go? What percentage would be needed to move forward (I assume the “official” vote would be unanimous)? Would the new east coast additions have full votes and would they be opposed to expansion half a continent away? Would the academic elite of the conference oppose OU?
LikeLike
Good questions. To the last one, does the B1G have an academic elite? NW is an outlier at the top, Nebraska a bit on the bottom, but otherwise it’s a pretty level group, as conferences go. Sure, there’s some separation, but its much tighter than, say, the Pac or the SEC.
LikeLike
Logan,
I’d expect at least 10 votes are needed to proceed (2/3).
Yes, the newbies would have full votes.
Who knows what the elites would do? That’s primarily NW, MI and WI for this sort of vote, from what I’ve heard.
LikeLike
The three schools that care most about academic reputation are Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois. Northwestern seems to be more what Delany says which kind of makes sense as the TV cash matters more to them.
LikeLike
Thanks. Assumed it was either 3/4 or 2/3, which would be 10 or 11 schools. I think the biggest obstacle here is if the B1G decides not to offer OU and KU, and it would be interesting if Delaney could get everyone on board (assuming he favors it) or if the opposition would be strong from a handful of schools.
LikeLike
Football drives the bus… True? But there are a couple of realities to this. The Big Ten is bigger with adding two average at best teams. Adding an Oklahoma or Texas may seem great, but adding the likes of a Mizzu or KU advances there agenda forward too. The money won’t be all that much better with the big boys. Better,yes. But only by 10 or 15 percent from a football standpoint. Any other sports will be equal. And the harsh reality to this my dear friends is A. Inventory equals cash and eyeballs – this drives the bus B. Academics is the engine C. And football is now just a passenger on this bus… And with all the head injuries and lack of participation already being evident in junior programs, this will be about solid universities. Football in 25 years will be a shell of itself. Basketball will have grown, is a TV sport, esp in the winter of these colder states. Other sports will grow and be more in demand. TV will shift a bit to these sports. But what won’t shift is academic power. KU and OK? Great. Or it could be almost any com or of Mizzu and ISU and Colorado and UVA or what every solid university and you will get the same result – a bigger, richer conference. Basically the play is to eliminate the Big 12 and almost guarantee a Big Ten team in the football playoff every year.
LikeLike
If football isn’t going to be as popular in the future, why would the B1G’s “play” revolve around the college football playoff? And isn’t that playoff likely to expand anyway?
LikeLike
As a traditionalist, I would love to see Okla in the B1G so that Neb could play its arch rival on the last weekend of the season like they used to.
I would also love to see the new P4 conferences use their championship games as the first round of the playoffs. That would give you 8 teams.
Then the conference champs would play. Of course I would always want to see the B1G vs the P16 in the Rose Bowl on New Years’ Day in Pasadena. Let the other games rotate to different locations, but I want the my Rose Bowl back (as much as possible)
LikeLike
“I would also love to see the new P4 conferences use their championship games as the first round of the playoffs. That would give you 8 teams.”
Buckeye DJ great points. I heard Rick Neuhiesell (sp?) say that exact thing a few weeks ago on Sirius XM. Paraphrasing but basically, “If Playoff committee wants to expand to 8, that will be the fastest way to four 16 team conferences with the four champions in the playoffs.” Ruhh-Row Big XII!!! Obviously Rick was speculating but it caught my attention as a conference expansion junkie.
Obviously Dan Beebee dropped his pants and bent over for DeLoss Dodds and Texas. He probably had to to save the conference a few years ago. That got Beebee a faux raise but also got him fired. Texas was the reason the Big XII had defectors then and its still the reason why the Big XII is on thin ice due to the LHN. Anyone who listens to Sirius/XM channel 91 is hearing the bad news for the Big XII within 5 years they all estimate.
That’s why I think Boren is making waves and trying for the B1G. Sounds likely that Kansas would be the next in line as they attract portions of St. Louis and Denver tv markets as well as their brands in football & basketball.
Texas is too arrogant to leave the LHN and B1G won’t allow that crap. Notre Dump’s arrogance will get them right out of the playoff committee and what recruit wants that. Great job Swarbrick.
I’ll bet in 5 years or less Big XII will implode.
Another reason, that Boren wants out is academics. Guys – the academic money that comes into the B1G via Committee on Institutional Consortium (CIC) isn’t worth tens of millions, its worth hundreds of millions. That means billions over 10 years split between all of the schools academically..
LikeLike
What happens in 5 years that would precipitate/allow the B12 to implode?
LikeLike
A new administration in Texas decides that they want to leave the Big12, and refuse to sign up for a renewal of the GOR.
That’s pretty much it … if the front man decides it wants to keep the band together, the band gets to stay together.
LikeLike
Agree about process. Time frame…?
GOR is not close to up in 5 yrs, and LHN contract runs past the next decade.
LikeLike
Agree about process. Time frame…?
GOR is not close to up in 5 yrs, and LHN contract runs past the next decade.
The Big XII’s GoR expires in 2025. I think that a school could contemplate leaving when the GoR has roughly 2–3 years left to run. Anything earlier than that, and I think the costs are just too onerous to accept.
But schools and conferences are often talking long before they actually make a move. So I think 2020 is roughly the time when Oklahoma and Kansas could start talking seriously with suitors, as opposed to merely rattling their sabre, as Boren is doing now.
It is harder to see how Texas could do that, unless they move to a conference where ESPN already holds the Tier 3 rights for all the other schools. Or unless Texas and ESPN agree mutually to pull the plug on LHN, if it fails miserably enough.
LikeLike
By 2025 ESPN will be willing to cancel the LHN deal. Not clear how much Texas will be paid by ESPN for agreeing to cancel, but that is the way the payment will go since the deal is so favorable to Texas. Texas just needs to do this before announcing they are leaving the XII.
LikeLike
Buckeye DJ,
“As a traditionalist, I would love to see Okla in the B1G so that Neb could play its arch rival on the last weekend of the season like they used to.”
As a hard core traditionalist, I’d rather see them do it in the Big 8.
“I would also love to see the new P4 conferences use their championship games as the first round of the playoffs. That would give you 8 teams.”
1. The powers that be are not going to force independents to join conferences. As long as there are independents, they will have some means to make the playoff. Thus, they won’t just make the CCGs the quarterfinals.
2. The G5 schools are still I-A members. They have to have the possibility of making the playoff or they’ll block the playoff expansion. There’s no better way to assure that the courts and/or congress get involved than to set up a systems that bars more than half the schools from making the playoff.
3. CFB has never set up rules requiring teams to be conference champions to make the playoff (BCS or CFP). Why would they start now? There has to be room for a wildcard team that doesn’t win its conference but clearly deserves to be in the top 4 (or 8).
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13347802/college-football-playoff-force-notre-dame-fighting-irish-join-conference
Here’s the CFP head saying exactly that.
In spite of recent comments from coaches that Notre Dame should join a conference, there is no discussion of forcing independent teams to become a member of a league in order to participate in the College Football Playoff, CFP executive director Bill Hancock said Thursday.
“The three independents are perfectly happy being independent,” Hancock said of the Irish, BYU and Army. “They have the ability to craft their schedules to fit their needs. If their need and goal is to be in the playoff, then they’re in the same boat as everybody else. You better play a good schedule if you want to be in the playoff.”
…
Hancock had a different take, saying the freedom of scheduling is part of what makes college football special.
“The fact is it’s not going to change,” Hancock said. “The conferences all have reasons for scheduling and deciding their champions the way they do. It’s important to each one of them.
“Frankly, in the committee room, it wasn’t a factor. The committee has the luxury of looking at the full body of work from an entire season — 12 or 13 games — for each team, irrespective of what conference they’re in. Having been in the committee room, I can tell you, it’s just not a factor.”
LikeLike
They are really separate things.
They want to expand for money and power. The play is to eliminate The Big 12 (or ACC.) if it were just about football then Rutgers and Maryland would not be in the Big 10. It’s about growing, both athletically and academically, and the result would be money and power. If they can butcher a conference at the same time then BOOM its a bonus – four conferences rather than 5. Plus a move with the likes of OK and KU leaves the college world with one last play, and the Big 10 will have the most chips then. The last plays are ND and TX. From a TV/football stand point it’s important, money now and more of it, but five, ten, twenty years down the road when football is declining and other sports are enhancing then you have solid universities tin your league now, and a lot of them. If the play was football and football only and as that relates to TV, then you only have like five schools that are worth a shit to go after. Maryland and Rutgers added value. And money. And power.
Think of it this way – what universities would you add if football just went away and no one sport dominated? Most any large state school outside of your footprint that still had athletic chops and AAU status would be the way to go. OK may not be AAU —- but in the future who knows?
LikeLike
“If they can butcher a conference at the same time then BOOM its a bonus – four conferences rather than 5.”
This is likely a major difference between people who play fantasy Conference Realignment Risk and University Presidents … University Presidents are highly unlikely to be focusing on the destruction of another conference as a big win. Conferences are not corporations, they are clubs, and the interests that drive them are not the interest of the group as perceived by the CEO and Board, but the interests of the individual schools as perceived by those schools.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess my best analogy would be the following:
Think if there were only five decent restaurants in the USA. They all had nice wine lists, some boasting nice red wines (athletics) and white wines (academics.) if you own one of these restaurants, one of your goals is to grow. You decide that the only real way to grow is by adding wines that only the other restaurants carry, bc now you have your list which is completely separate from the other four restaurants. You take a Brand with a solid red portfolio but is a little lacking in white, and you take Brand with a great white portfolio while lacking in red. By taking these wines away from one of your four competitors, they are forced to close or add wines that are really not all that good In any sense. By adding some good reds and good whites, you know you have some power and influence on your new wines to enhance their weaker points. If you eliminate some competition, so be it. Now that restaurant is forced to close but their remaining wine list is up for grabs. You may land Opus One (Texas) and BOOM job well done. If one of the remaining three restaurants get Opus One, well fine. You had 20 percent of the market, by eliminating competion you now have 25. Your goal is to grow and add solid brands. But by being first and aggressive you go after the wine brands you want, and which make sense for your restaurant. Certainly the big 10 could court Far Niente (florida) but the owner (big 10, Jim Delaney, etc.) just do not believe Far Niente works for their current clients. By adding KU and OK you getting two solid wine brands (Robert Mondavi and Beringer) to enhance your list and then have a chance at Opus One (Texas) and/or Caymus(ND) certainly there are other small restaurants around the USA (MAC,SWAC,MWC) but none of these restaurants really compete with you bc their wine lists have Two Buck Chuck and Mad Dog 20/20. So you never pay attention to any of these smaller restaurants. Your goal is to enhance your wine list with good to great reds and whites. If you happened to eliminate one of your four competitors then you have enhance your overall brand. This is about making the Big Ten a bigger and better brand with more red and white wines that make sense for their current customer base and potential new customers.
LikeLike
Since we’re in speculation mode anyway I’ll toss this out here:
Theorizing multiple conferences bulking up to 16 members (potentially B1G, ACC, SEC and Pac12 all doing it by eating the BigXII) which will be the first conference to have the top 8(it) teams split to form their own conference in order to increase their per-school payout / influence / etc? And which teams would run?
I’ll go first: I’d see the ACC busting up first, with Tobacco Road pilfering whoever the other top dogs are (Texas, ND if they were to join for instance) and leaving most of the old Big East rump in the dust. They may even try to pull a Big East and somehow finagle (i.e. throw cash) the name to come along with them.
LikeLike
BIG 16 = Oklahoma + Kansas
Oklahoma is making the most noise so this looks like the first domino to fall.
ACC 16 = Texas + Notes Dame
Texas seems reluctant to be the scapegoat for breaking up the Big 12. Texas follows Oklahoma out the open door. Joins ACC to increase exposure along the east coast and affiliate with the best undergrad conference in the country.
SEC 16 = West Virginia + Texas Tech
SEC wouldn’t have to expand but if they do they can take the teams with lesser academics. East needs another team for numbers & Tech gives A&M a travel partner.
PAC 16 = Texas Christian + Baylor + Oklahoma State + Kansas State
PAC wouldn’t have to act either and could add BYU instead of TCU but this would be nice for symmetry.
That just leaves Iowa State out of the Power 4. They’d either join MWC with BYU or UTEP or AAC with Rice.
LikeLike
Tigertails,
I have to disagree with a couple of your points.
“SEC wouldn’t have to expand but if they do they can take the teams with lesser academics. East needs another team for numbers & Tech gives A&M a travel partner.”
TT is 485 miles from TAMU. LSU is over 100 miles closer to TAMU. AR is only 30 miles farther away. MS State is less than 100 more miles away. I don’t really see TT as a travel partner for TAMU.
“PAC 16 = Texas Christian + Baylor + Oklahoma State + Kansas State
PAC wouldn’t have to act either and could add BYU instead of TCU but this would be nice for symmetry.”
No, no, no and no. Without their big brothers, the P12 has zero interest in schools like OkSU and KSU due to their poor academics compared to most P12 members (Cal, Stanford, etc would block them). The religious aspects of TCU and Baylor would be very problematic for their entrance as well. Besides, they are small schools with limited brands a long way from P12 territory. They might take one of them with UT, but not by themselves. BYU faces the same problem as the P12 wants no part of a religious school like that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is largely correct. So if you want to reduce the P5 to P4, then BiG would be better off letting the Pac have OU and Kansas. Otherwise, the conference will hold tight at 12 teams unless Texas comes calling.
LikeLike
This is largely correct. So if you want to reduce the P5 to P4, then BiG would be better off letting the Pac have OU and Kansas. Otherwise, the conference will hold tight at 12 teams unless Texas comes calling.
I don’t think there’s anyone in the P5 that is trying actively to reduce the number of major conferences from five to four. They are just looking to make moves individually, when and if they can, to improve their own lot in life.
In other words, if the B1G takes OK and KU, it won’t be because they’re trying to kill off the Big XII. It’ll be because they think OK and KU are good schools to have, and that’s that.
Anyhow, why would the PAC cooperate in your plan, by taking two schools it doesn’t want, while the great whale remains a free agent? Kansas is at least geographically contiguous with the B1G, and has a long-standing rivalry with Nebraska. Kansas in the PAC makes very little sense.
LikeLike
I get that TCU is more than a longshot for the Pac, but please, PLEASE don’t lump us in with Baylor and BYU; those are three very different degrees of religious affiliation. Sure TCU has Christian in the name and a divinity school on campus (affiliated with, but not technically part of the university), but TCU’s ties to the Disciples of Christ are tenuous; we’re no more religious than Syracuse. Baylor is partially governed by the Baptist Church, and they still require all members of their Board of Regents to be Christians – it was all Baptists until like five years ago. BYU, meanwhile, is owned and operated by the LDS Church and exists to further its mission.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jake,
I’m aware that the level of religious affiliation is very different between the 3 schools. However, I believe it is still strong enough at TCU to cause problems for schools like Cal and Stanford.
LikeLike
However, there’s still a difference between “cause problems with” and “generate overwhelming opposition”. TCU is not a good institutional fit with the PAC-12 institutions, but there would there be far more strident opposition at Cal and Stanford to a BYU or Baylor, but it also seems like there would likely be a larger number of PAC-12 schools in the “its no and there’s nothing more to talk about” camp with Baylor and BYU.
LikeLike
I agree with Jake. Despite its name, TCU is a very secular school. Most majors require one religion elective, such as a survey of world religion. Its a Disciples of Christ school in name only, and the Disciples of Christ denomination is about as mainline and liberal a denomination as you could find. On the other hand, Baylor is very religious and run by Baptists.
While I don’t think TCU is a candidate for admission to any other P5 conference, it has close to 10,000 very smart undergraduates due to extremely selective admissions, a healthy endowment, generous alums, and is about to open up a medical school.
Fort Worth is a great town and TCU is a great school that is committed to its athletic program. The football stadium is essentially a $100mm re-build that paid for in cash during the silent phase of its capital campaign. TCU is about to start another campaign that will add $1B to its endowment. If the SEC ever had to pick between Tx Tech and TCU, I’d pick TCU in a heart beat.
LikeLike
If a couple of schools are dead set against it, I doubt the others would force the expansion on them. I think Cal and Standford would be dead set against TCU. I think the others wouldn’t see much value in TCU so it wouldn’t be worth aggravating Cal and Stanford to add them.
LikeLike
@Tigertails: I agree with all of Brian’s points, but would add another.
Your analysis assumes that all of the power conferences would decide conveniently, and at the same time, that they all want 16 teams, practically regardless of who those teams are!!
This is just ludicrous. At no point in history have all the “power conferences” had the same number of members. They are independent bodies, who act in their own good time, according to their own best interests as they perceive them. You’re proposing a number of weak moves, which stable conferences like the SEC and PAC have no incentive to make.
SEC wouldn’t have to expand but if they do they can take the teams with lesser academics. East needs another team for numbers & Tech gives A&M a travel partner.
Brian already debunked this, but the notion of a “travel partner” is a fallacy anyway, even if the geography made sense. It’s a difference of, at most, one game (or meet) per year per sport, not significant enough to drive a decision.
Even for West Virginia, the one P5 school that’s really out of line geographically, adding one Eastern school like Cincinnati to the Big XII would not change their travel burden very much.
LikeLike
But is that what travel partners ARE?
AFAIU, travel partners are not about the travel of the “partner” school, its for Olympic sports that have both midweek and weekend games, where you fly to travel partner A and play, bus to travel partner B and play, and fly home.
They are more of an issue at the Go5 level and below. I expect that the “WVU island” issue is more about the fact that schools in neighboring territories complement each other as far as gaining profile, with spillover support from one or more conference schools in the coverage area of regional media increasing the attention paid to each of the schools in the conference.
LikeLike
AFAIU, travel partners are not about the travel of the “partner” school, its for Olympic sports that have both midweek and weekend games, where you fly to travel partner A and play, bus to travel partner B and play, and fly home.
That is precisely what I understand it to be. My point is that adding just one “travel partner” to a conference of 10 or more schools, doesn’t really move the travel needle all that much.
And I agree that it’s much more of a concern for the Go5 conferences. One of the reasons I think the MAC has been so stable, is that 11 out of 12 full-time members are in Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, or Indiana. Nine out of 12 are in Michigan or Ohio. Almost all their teams are within reasonable bus distance to the others.
LikeLike
Though adding a travel partner as opposed to adding a second school on an island is definitely better for non-revenue sports. At the Big12 level, that may well be an “Athletic Director management headache” issue rather than a money issue.
LikeLike
There is no financial incentive for the SEC to add another team from Texas. That divides the revenue pie without increasing the overall pay-out. Not gonna happen.
LikeLike
@Tim Speer – There would still be a financial incentive for the SEC to add Texas (the school). It would be no different than the Big Ten adding Notre Dame, where even though their market is technically already covered by Indiana and Purdue, the national value is massive. I’d agree with you with respect to the other Texas-based Big 12 schools.
LikeLike
Texas isn’t going to the SEC. White trash A&M has already filled up that trailer park.
LikeLike
Easy does it! Academically A&M is a fine university.
LikeLike
Lol
LikeLike
If the SEC was going to take someone along with West Virginia, then I just don’t see why it would be Tech. If I was the SEC commish in this scenario, I would take Oklahoma St, if I couldn’t get UT, KU, or OU first. IMO the best thing the Red Raiders can hope for is that Texas decides to drop the LHN, go to the PAC, and convince Larry Scott and crew to take them along for the ride.
LikeLike
I continue to read a lot of talk about going to 4 power conferences of 16 each. Why does it have to be 16 each? Couldn’t some remain at 12 and some go to 18 or 20?
LikeLike
It doesn’t have to be 16, but many people like the symmetry of it. Also, it’s more like the NFL. Finally, it allows breaking into pods of 4 for scheduling purposes while still keeping divisions.
The major conferences have never all been the same size before and it’s unlikely they will be for any prolonged period. The P12 has limited choices while the eastern US is full of schools.
LikeLike
In other words, the people who build fantasy realignments are often building them top down like an architect, when in reality they will be built from the bottom up based on the needs of the balance of power coalitions of schools in the individual conferences. A collapse of either the Big12 or ACC into a P4 could just as easily result in two 14 school conferences, a 16 school conference and an 18 school conference.
LikeLike
It is actually difficult to be as wrong as you have been in the past about realignment. Remember those great articles you wrote about how the Aggies couldn’t go to the SEC and it wasn’t ever going to happen. And that the PAC-16 was the logical conclusion for realignment…..ummmm. yeah.
LikeLike
Frank’s prediction record is pretty good, which doesn’t mean perfect. Find me someone who’s better, and we’ll talk.
LikeLike
His reliance on Longhorn sources led him astray on the A&M / SEC realignment story. Plenty of A&M sources or posters tried getting him less orange filtered input but it was ignored and led to some now pretty humorous blog posts by Frank.
LikeLike
@FrankTheAg – I made some wrong predictions on A&M back in the day. What can I say? To be sure, I sincerely find your brethren at TexAgs hilarious. I’m pretty sure someone posts one of my wrong predictions from several years ago to mock at least once a month over there.
LikeLike
@FrankTheAg- Also, FWIW, the person I spoke to in this blog post was completely correct on A&M moving to the SEC with specific details beforehand. Should I have listened to him then? Yes.
LikeLike
Yes, Frank the Tank has been repeatedly wrong … in the sense that each and every time he posts, somebody repeats that he was wrong about A&M. So he was wrong on one realignment that some people see fit to raise repeatedly.
LikeLike
Take a breath, Dude. Inhale.
LikeLike
I see several problems when talking OU and KU to the B10:
1. Why make a move that may pressure UT to go somewhere but leaves you lacking room for them? Wouldn’t it be better to try to get UT as part of the package? The last thing you want to do is push UT into another conference (unless the B10 is happy to help the P12 this way). Or is the B10 happy to go to 18+?
2. The GoR is an obvious concern. Perhaps they’re looking to sign the schools now but not have them officially move until closer to the end of the GoR? That would put the B12 in the awkward position of promoting school you know are leaving soon or punishing everyone by not showing your top brands as much in prime TV spots. They could decide it’s better to let them go sooner rather than later for a decent settlement. If something isn’t worked out, wouldn’t it make more sense to do this in the early 2020s?
3. Little brothers. By most/all accounts, they aren’t legally tied to each other at the hip. However, we know politicians love to stick their noses into things. I don’t think they’d normally interfere with one of their schools moving up, but when they know it’ll likely harm the other school they have to at least think about blocking the move.
4. Does it make sense for the B10? KU is a decent fit culturally with decent academics, terrible football and poor demographics but terrific basketball. OU is a poor cultural fit with lesser academic standing and poor demographics but terrific football. Does this pair raise the per school payout significantly? Do they help the long term demographics? Are the additions of major brands in the two revenue sports worth all the negatives of this expansion? If it’s just a pro rata increase, is it worth it to expand and play everyone else less often?
5. Can it get done before the B10 starts negotiating their new TV deal in earnest? If not, can they get an early look-in based on expansion?
6. Is the B10 done with their eastward expansion and looking to go southwest instead? Adding OU and KU would basically have to end any pursuit of eastern teams, I’d think. Are UNC and UVA (or other schools) more valuable to the B10 for non-athletic reasons? Are they potential options in 10-30 years? Does the B10 want to give up on them?
7. This really only makes sense to me if it’s all about also adding UT in the long run. Is there a solution to the LHN problem? What about the Tech problem?
LikeLike
Did ‘Tech’ problem really mean ‘A&M’ problem?
LikeLike
No, it really was a Tech problem. As we saw in the end, A&M had other options. Tech did not, and does not.
LikeLike
Yes, difficult to separate Cheech from Chong.
LikeLike
Speak of the Devil:
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/04/04/hash-bash-feature-tommy-chong-lansing-mayor/25288923/
The annual event, which organizers call a “speak out and smoke down” protest, has a long history in Ann Arbor now in its 44th year.
The two-hour rally featured speakers ranging from comedian Tommy Chong to Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero, as well as activist John Sinclair, for whom the original rally was held in 1972.
Chong, 76, is known to film-lovers as one-half of the comedy stoner duo Cheech and Chong.
The event kicked-off with speakers asking the crowd to take off their hats and turn the U.S. flag that waved high about the Diag as a skilled guitarist performed a rousing Jimi Hendrix-inspired version of the “Star Spangled Banner.”
LikeLike
KU and OU will not significantly increase the B1G payout, and might even reduce it with the 12.5% cut per school in playoff and CCG $$$. With current B1G renewal estimates of $40M+ per school, even if KU and OK added $1B to a 10 year contract that would net no increase for the current 14 B1G members. The risk of a lower payout with this expansion is real. So there is no incentive for MI, WI, and IL to go academic slumming, or (#6) for PSU, MD, and Rutgers to cede further eastern expansions. When you add on all the legal issues with the GoR, the political issues with oSu (T. Boone Pickens is 87 but he is not dead yet, and the current OK politicians know where the money comes from). Why try to force something now that could be a disaster when most of these issues will resolve themselves in 10 years with the GoR expiration.
To point #1,7: With 14 years of the LHN, Texas will know its success, renewal potential and have received most of the contract payout. So if the B1G wants TX it should just wait for the GoR expiration since the LHN problem will have resolved itself by that time.
Boren is a politician and that profession specializes in speeches. Too much is being made of these comments. He may be getting leverage on Texas, or setting up for a future move 7+ years out. He is not about to buck the GoR, and oSu now for an invite that is very unlikely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am with you. I don’t see what this does for the B1G. OU and KU are names no question but they are not the biggest names especially when you have names as big or bigger sitting in much bigger states that are in play. They are small states that don’t produce talent in really any major sport.
Academically not seeing this at all. KU is going to lose their membership sooner then later and OU is behind at least a dozen other schools. Both are in states that are a bit hostile to either funding and/or science.
LikeLike
If you consider the upcoming TV negotiations, having Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin and Oklahoma on the docket. (Add in Kansas for Basketball) Wouldn’t that alone add value. I don’t know what the pay out for the Big XII GOR is but is it safe to assume that it is less than Oklahoma would make from the COC and the potential revenue from the new TV deal the B1G is estimated to make?
Wouldn’t Oklahoma be able to make the case that the new TV deal is so large partly because of their movement into the B1G and that could help with the buy in process into the BTN?
If Oklahoma and Kansas do join the B1G, the 4 team PODS idea would actually work better with the upcoming 9 game conference schedule as each team would play the other 3 teams in its POD and 2 teams from the other 3 PODS making sure that every team has played a Home and Home every 4 years. It would also allow the conference to balance the power across the PODS more easily and renew the Nebraska and Oklahoma rivalry, which I do believe Nebraska has missed since the creation of the Big XII. (Not sure how Oklahoma feels about the Rivalry) and it would allow for the power schools, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin and Oklahoma to meet on a more regular basis creating more big games televised.
LikeLike
jamesinsocal,
“If you consider the upcoming TV negotiations, having Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin and Oklahoma on the docket. (Add in Kansas for Basketball) Wouldn’t that alone add value.”
Do OU football and KU hoops add value? Of course. How much is the question.
Click to access Cable_UEs_by_State.pdf
Comparison of total TV households:
PA – 4.82M
IL – 4.69M
OH – 4.39M
MI – 3.71M
NJ – 3.13M
IN – 2.39M
WI – 2.21M
MD – 2.12M
MN – 2.04M
OK – 1.44M
IA – 1.18M
KS – 1.07M
NE – 0.703M
DC – 0.280M
http://www.jconline.com/story/sports/college/purdue/football/2014/04/25/big-ten-schools-expecting-big-payouts-continue/8187133/
The B10 projected payouts when adding UMD and RU:
2015 – $30.9M
2016 – 34.1
2017 – 35.5
2018 – 44.5 (start of new deal)
The Big Ten is anticipating 12 schools will receive roughly $33 million in 2017-18 from television revenue alone — about a $10 million per school increase from 2016-17 projection, the final year of a 10-year, $1 billion deal which started in 2007-08.
OK has only 1.44M total TV households. OU would also add national fans, plus plenty of fans in neighboring states (TX, especially). In other words, OU would help ratings but not boost BTN very much. Is that worth $33M?
KS is smaller at 1.07M. In addition, KU football has zero value. On the bright side, KU hoops would drive ratings and maybe even BTN subscriptions. Does that add up to $33M or more? The hoops deal is much smaller than the football deal, but the winter inventory would be helpful for BTN. In addition, KU will boost the NCAA hoops payout. Still, I don’t see how KU pays for itself. That’s the problem.
“I don’t know what the pay out for the Big XII GOR is but is it safe to assume that it is less than Oklahoma would make from the COC and the potential revenue from the new TV deal the B1G is estimated to make?”
In theory, the GOR means the B12 would own OU’s home football games through 2024-5 and OU wouldn’t get paid a cent by them. I don’t think that’s what would actually happen, though.
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/myth-of-the-big-12s-grant-of-rights-010313
That’s a lawyer arguing that there would be no damages in breaking a GOR so it wouldn’t be expensive at all. IANAL, so I’ll let you make your own decision.
Regardless, OU would still need to buy into the BTN. That’s a 6 year process, so OU couldn’t get much of a bump before then. If breaking the GOR gets expensive, that also has to get paid somehow. The CIC wouldn’t add much money directly to OU at the outset, but it would lead to a rapid growth in research dollars and increase in academic rankings. Certainly OU wants that.
“Wouldn’t Oklahoma be able to make the case that the new TV deal is so large partly because of their movement into the B1G and that could help with the buy in process into the BTN?”
Only if it greatly exceeds the projections already in hand. Frankly, the networks could tell the B10 exactly how much more OU and KU are worth to them beyond the current 14.
“If Oklahoma and Kansas do join the B1G, the 4 team PODS idea would actually work better with the upcoming 9 game conference schedule as each team would play the other 3 teams in its POD and 2 teams from the other 3 PODS making sure that every team has played a Home and Home every 4 years. It would also allow the conference to balance the power across the PODS more easily and renew the Nebraska and Oklahoma rivalry, which I do believe Nebraska has missed since the creation of the Big XII. (Not sure how Oklahoma feels about the Rivalry) and it would allow for the power schools, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin and Oklahoma to meet on a more regular basis creating more big games televised.”
It gets messy when trying to make pods of 4 in the B10. You need to preserve rivalries and the B10 doesn’t neatly split into 4 equal groups that way.
W – OU, NE, KU, ?
N – WI, MN, IA, ?
S – OSU, MI, MSU, ?
E – PSU, RU, UMD, ?
That leaves NW, IL, PU and IN all split up. Or you have to split the triangle of hate (WI, IA, MN). Or split up MI from a huge rival. Or get into sets of locked rivals.
Better is a 6, 2, 2, 6 system:
W – OU, NE, WI, IA, MN, KU
C1 – NW, IL
C2 – PU, IN
E – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, RU, UMD
Swap C1 and C2 between divisions every 2 years. It keeps the regional teams together in each division and lets the central 4 play each other annually.
Or just drop pods:
W – OU, NE, WI, IA, MN, KU, NW, IL
E – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, RU, UMD, PU, IN
But better than that is dropping divisions and locking multiple opponents:
9 games = 5 teams x 100% + 10 teams x 40%
9 games = 4 teams x 100% + 11 teams x 45%
9 games = 3 teams x 100% + 12 teams x 50%
Everybody gets to keep their important rivals while seeing everyone else frequently and equally.
Now, I noted you stuck with 4 pods but no divisions. That really the same as dropping divisions, but it forces groups of 4 to be locked together. Scheduling as one big conference with multiple locked games gives you more freedom and locks fewer games that neither side cares much about.
LikeLike
POD’s could be the way for the future for all conferences.
LikeLike
If CCGs get deregulated, I think pods lose their value. You can get a slightly better result by scheduling as one big conference and locking several rivals per school.
Examples:
16 teams
9 games = 3 in pod + 4 in division + 2 crossover = 3 * 100% + 12 * 50%
or
9 games = 3 in pod + 2 each from other pods (or 4/1/1) = 3 * 100% + 12 * 50%
or
9 games = 3 locked rivals + 6 rotating games = 3 * 100% + 12 * 50%
20 teams
9 games = 4 in pod + 5 in division = 4 * 100% + 15 * 33%
or
9 games = 4 in pod + 1/2/2 each from other pods (or all of one other pod) = 4 * 100% + 15 * 33%
or
9 games = 4 locked rivals + 5 rotating games = 4 * 100% + 15 * 33%
The reason 1 conference is better is that you don’t need separate pods.
Example:
A – B, C, D, E
B – A, C, D, F
C – A, B, E, F
D – A, B, E, F
E – A, C, D, F
F – B, C, D, E
This allows groups to overlap and maintain more rivalries (or suit other purposes) than separate pods can.
B10 (16) example with OU and KU:
OU – NE, KU, WI
NE – OU, KU, IA
KU – OU, NE, MN
IA – WI, MN, NE
WI – IA, MN, OU
MN – WI, IA, KU
NW – IL, MSU, PU
IL – NW, PU, IN
PU – IN, IL, NW
IN – PU, MSU, IL
MI – OSU, MSU, RU
MSU – MI, NW, IN
OSU – MI, PSU, UMD
PSU – OSU, RU, UMD
RU – PSU, UMD, MI
UMD – PSU, RU, OSU
9 games = 3 locked “rivals” + 6 rotating games (12 * 50%)
Personally, I’d prefer to lock more games but then you get into a debate about how many unnecessary game are locked.
9 games = 4 locked “rivals” + 5 rotating games (11 * 45%)
9 games = 5 locked “rivals” + 4 rotating games (10 * 40%)
LikeLike
Pingback: The Morning Stake: More on Conference Realignment and Oklahoma – Staking The Plains
Go Bucks.
LikeLike
If OU really wants out before the GOR ends, they should convince KU to announce their intent to depart the conference at the conclusion of the GOR … sit back and watch the walls crumble all on it’s own long before the GOR does conclude …
LikeLike
The more I see attempts to make 4×16 work, the more I think it won’t happen. There is no commissioner of college football, no guiding force to make sure this nice, neat outcome happens. Sure, you have the TV networks, but even they have opposing priorities, and as conferences create their own networks, even those partially or fully owned by Fox/ESPN, that still puts more power in the hands of the conferences.
I think we are looking at Big 12 teams jumping ship, but I see the future as a big 2 (B1G and SEC), a weaker, but geographically protected Pac, and a lower tier eastern conference (what is left of the ACC) and a western conference (what is left of the Big 12+MWC). Notre Dame stays independent, maybe Texas does it as well. The question then becomes how big the B1G and SEC get. I don’t think 16 is the stopping point once we concede that 4×16 won’t happen. 20, even 24, seems possible, as long as their are viable candidates.
I don’t really know what this means now. I suppose the B1G would be more likely to take OU and KU if they know if won’t preclude them from eastern expansion in the future. If 4×16 was going to happen, I think they would be more reluctant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think if you look at the massive market, academic excellence and insane recruiting – not to mention that you would have match-ups that would be powerful and captivating – ND and UT to the ACC makes sense.
The ACC has Southern recruiting, Northeastern media exposure and is arguably the best academic conference. If ND and UT are forward-thinking, this group of 16 will have crazy success in the future. Adding those schools makes a ton of money, and from there, the facility upgrades and quality of the program’s enters a virtuous cycle.
Othe similar option is for those 2 to buddy up and go to the Pac-12. Other 2 plays don’t make sense: the B1G has population and recruiting issues (tOSU last year was heavily Augmented with Southern talent) and the SEC is a big academic black-eye for UT (ND wouldn’t join – and likely would never be invited in the first place). SEC will also never expand to Northeast like ACC did – and so they won’t have as much long-term value.
I’m not saying this is a slam dunk, but clearly UT and ND see themselves as kindred spirits (notice their scheduling each other), and the ACC/ESPN would be fools not to make this happen if they could. Perhaps that’s why ACC isn’t in a hurry to roll-out ACC network? Even if they gave ND and UT 5 game deals as a trial period to lock them both up – genius.
If that happens, it will rival B1G money.
LikeLike
I just don’t see an OU/KU addition by the B1G. These are 50 to 100 year decisions. Rutgers and Maryland may be middling athletic departments, but in 50 years they will still be B1G-average in academics and research, contiguously located in large population centers.
In 50 years, OU and KU will still be the two worst institutions in the B1G, in relatively remote states with the lowest and 3rd lowest populations. Football could fade away, or OU and KU athletic departments may decline, or any number of unforeseen changes in athletics.
I fail to see the COP/C making such short-term move.
LikeLike
Here’s my issue with the argument against an OU/KU expansion by the Big Ten: we need to take into account what happens to the Big Ten’s relative power in the college sports landscape if OU and KU go to a competitor like the SEC or Pac-12. It’s easy to say that the Big Ten should just wait for the chance to get, say, UVA or UNC 20 or 30 years down the road if we are guaranteed that today’s status quo will hold for that time. However, if OU is rattling sabres NOW, that changes things dramatically. How much more powerful does the SEC become if it adds yet another top level football brand name like Oklahoma? Heck, even if you’re of the belief that football is going to become less popular over the next generation, how much more valuable is the SEC if it has both Kentucky and Kansas basketball? The way I see it, the SEC adding those brand names can be the difference between the SEC and Big Ten having equal stature financially for the next 10 to 15 years into one where the SEC is clearly #1. Likewise, the Pac-12 adding OU and KU can vault them into equal financial stature with the SEC and Big Ten when they were clearly behind them up until now.
I think it would be a massive mistake for the Big Ten to pass on the opportunity to add two of the most elite brand names in college football and college basketball simply because they hope that ACC schools such as UVA and UNC *might* come within the next couple of decades (and IMHO, UVA is the only one that would truly consider moving to the Big Ten and we ought to put UNC more in the category of hoping that Notre Dame would join or that Florida would leave the SEC). OU and KU aren’t some dreg schools – they’re flagship top tier national brand names that would provide a significant boost to the national value of the inventories of both Big Ten football and basketball. For as much as we talk about the Big Ten Network and markets, the biggest money is still in the national tier 1 rights (and that may increasingly be the case if/when we move to an a la carte cable industry). If the Big Ten doesn’t take OU and KU if they are truly on the open market, then the SEC or Pac-12 will instead… and that is NOT a positive for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Further to the last point, what if the *ACC* is able to get OU and KU (with or without UT)? Then all of the Big Ten waiting for UVA and UNC will have been completely all for naught because the ACC would have shored up its financial and branding position. We can’t look at the Big Ten adding Oklahoma and Kansas in a vacuum. When schools like Oklahoma and Kansas are on the free agent market, you can’t expect them to stay on that free agent market for long. I completely dismiss the idea that adding OU and KU would foreclose further Eastern expansion by the Big Ten. If anything, the only way that the Big Ten can hope to pry away schools like UVA and UNC in the future is to be so overwhelmingly powerful and lucrative that those schools effectively have no other choice. If the SEC gets OU and KU, then *they* become the conference that’s in that position (as they’d love UVA and UNC just as much as the B1G). By the same token, if the ACC gets OU and KU and improves their financial standing (as it now has two other brands that would be great for an ACC Network), then UVA and UNC wouldn’t have any reason to consider the B1G in the future. Letting OU and KU go to another conference is not something that the Big Ten can take lightly – whatever master plan the B1G might be hoping for in the future can completely backfire (and then just leaves the Big Ten with much poorer future expansion options compared to Oklahoma and Kansas today).
LikeLike
Frank – Since you brought up the ACC, how’s this for a scenario: ACC gives Texas a Notre Dame-type deal, then adds OU, KU, and two of the Big 12 Texas schools (Baylor, TCU, Tech). ACC gets all over the Texas market, and UT has some local schools to play in the non-football sports. Is 18 all-sport members plus two more for non-football sports too unwieldy?
LikeLike
Frank, I think you have expansion fever. Jumping to the conclusion that passing on OU/KU reflects a desire of UVA/UNC points to expansion fever in my book. I know that fans are obsessed with 4×16 and discussing lots of 18 or 24 team scenarios, but Gordon Gee was the only COP/C representative who has even touched on anything as crazy as that. You mention the risk of an OU/KU addition raising the SEC or ACC profile, but there is a larger risk of their academics reducing the profile of a conference, which is the true long term game.
IMO, the leading conferences are using a short term athletic financial advantage to expand in a way that solidifies the long term institutional dominance. B1G went Johns Hopkins/Maryland/Rutgers(/Nebraska). Given the supposed academic backlash to Nebraska, I cannot see the COP/C doubling down with OU/KU. SEC raised their academics with A&M and Missouri, while spinning up their own consortium that may mean something a few decades down the road.
The PAC would have gone for a game-changing Texas contingent which landed two very good to great institutions in Texas and A&M, but supposedly passed on OU/OkSU and the hit to their academic profile. The ACC and B12 have made some questionable expansion moves driven by the need to survive.
The B1G adding OU/KU, or going to 18 or 24, leads to its eventual breakup. I don’t see it happening. I could be wrong, but we shall see. Though it will take a while.
LikeLike
@greg – There’s a large difference between adding Oklahoma and Oklahoma State (which the Pac-12 rejected and the Big Ten also ought to reject for both financial and academic reasons) and adding Oklahoma and Kansas. These aren’t run-of-the-mill athletic brands – OU is one of the top dozen college football brands and KU is one of only a half-dozen schools where their basketball prowess can move the needle for realignment. There are very few plausible expansion scenarios where the athletic and financial benefits are so incredibly clear. I don’t believe that I’m someone that wants the Big Ten to expand for the sake of expanding. However, I simply believe that OU and KU are two schools that are absolutely worth expanding for. The Eastern options are foreclosed for the foreseeable future and the Big Ten is going to have to increase its power to even have a chance at those Eastern options later on. Also, like I’ve said, OU going to the SEC should really worry any Big Ten fan – that’s an awful scenario for the Big Ten.
On the academic side, it really all comes to whether Oklahoma passes the pass/fail line for the Big Ten. The Big Ten hasn’t really given extra points for being higher-rated academically when it comes to expansion. Instead, it has a baseline academic standard and either a school meets it or it doesn’t. If a school doesn’t meet that standard, then that school simply isn’t considered. If a school does meet that standard (even if it is right at the cut-off line, such as arguably Nebraska), then it’s judged purely on its athletic and financial contributions at that point. Schools such as Rutgers, Missouri and Pitt didn’t get extra points for being more highly-rated academically than Nebraska. Once it was determined that Nebraska was academically acceptable, then it was compared to Rutgers, Missouri, Pitt and other expansion candidates only on sports and money. Kansas is likely academically acceptable to the Big Ten as an AAU member. The question is really about Oklahoma – do they meet that academic cut-off line? If they do, then the fact that they’d be last place in the Big Ten academically is irrelevant. Passing the line is all that matters. If they don’t, then they won’t even be considered.
Let’s put it this way: the Big Ten isn’t actively trying to get the best academic schools possible. Instead, they’re looking for academically acceptable schools that will add to their athletic and financial prowess. There’s a significant difference there. The question isn’t about whether Kansas and Oklahoma would raise the academic standards of the Big Ten compared to Rutgers and Maryland (or even partial member Johns Hopkins). Instead, the critical first question is about whether KU and OU meet that academic cut-off line. If they do, then I don’t really see a better plausible athletic and financial expansion for the Big Ten outside of the currently unattainables (i.e. Texas, Notre Dame, UNC).
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Schools such as Rutgers, Missouri and Pitt didn’t get extra points for being more highly-rated academically than Nebraska. Once it was determined that Nebraska was academically acceptable, then it was compared to Rutgers, Missouri, Pitt and other expansion candidates only on sports and money.”
I don’t see any evidence that this was the case. Statements about Nebraska causing academic heartburn tend to disagree with it, and I see no way that the Maryland/Rutgers expansion happens if they each had Nebraska academics.
I’m not even sure the SEC wants Oklahoma/Kansas. They supposedly turned down one king in FSU, but will snag a different king in a much smaller state? (though FLA is already SEC territory where OK is not)
LikeLike
“Schools such as Rutgers, Missouri and Pitt didn’t get extra points for being more highly-rated academically than Nebraska. Once it was determined that Nebraska was academically acceptable, then it was compared to Rutgers, Missouri, Pitt and other expansion candidates only on sports and money.”>
I don’t see any evidence that this was the case. Statements about Nebraska causing academic heartburn tend to disagree with it,….
The evidence is that the league, in fact, added Nebraska. In other words: among those schools that met the academic hurdle, the B1G chose the best football program. That’s all Frank is saying. Whatever the “academic heartburn” may be, Nebraska had the votes to be admitted.
They certainly could have had Pitt, Rutgers, or Missouri at that time, all of which are academically better than Nebraska. But no. They took Nebraska.
I am pretty sure it was well known to at least some of the B1G presidents (if not all), that Nebraska’s AAU status was under review, and therefore, that it was possible they wouldn’t be in the organization much longer. If that was a deal-breaker, there were people in the room who could’ve brought it up.
LikeLike
“The evidence is that the league, in fact, added Nebraska.”
????
That is evidence that they liked the entire Nebraska package, particularly its King-ish football. It is NOT evidence that the COP/C ignored the academic difference between Nebraska and Rutgers.
You have to be smoking something if you don’t think the COP/C gives extra points to Rutgers academics compared to Nebraska.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is evidence that they liked the entire Nebraska package, particularly its King-ish football. It is NOT evidence that the COP/C ignored the academic difference between Nebraska and Rutgers.
You have to be smoking something if you don’t think the COP/C gives extra points to Rutgers academics compared to Nebraska.
Yes, of course they do, but that wasn’t the point.
The point was that, the Big Ten doesn’t take the best academic program. Had that been their strategy, they probably would’ve taken Rutgers as #12.
Their actual behavior is that they make the best sports decision, provided a particular academic hurdle is cleared. That is why Nebraska got in, despite academics at the lower end of the schools that we all assume received serious consideration.
Whether Oklahoma would also clear that hurdle is unknown. Nebraska was at least AAU at the time. Oklahoma has never been, and is a long way from it.
LikeLike
“Yes, of course they do, but that wasn’t the point.
The point was that, the Big Ten doesn’t take the best academic program. ”
No one has claimed that the Big Ten takes the best academic program.
“Their actual behavior is that they make the best sports decision, provided a particular academic hurdle is cleared.”
So you’re saying Rutgers was the best sports decision? Snort.
LikeLike
“Their actual behavior is that they make the best sports decision, provided a particular academic hurdle is cleared.”
So you’re saying Rutgers was the best sports decision? Snort.
At the time they took them…yes. What better option was there, among realistically availab
LikeLike
Sorry…that got cut off.
What better option was there, besides Rutgers, among reasonably available schools?
LikeLike
““Schools such as Rutgers, Missouri and Pitt didn’t get extra points for being more highly-rated academically than Nebraska. Once it was determined that Nebraska was academically acceptable, then it was compared to Rutgers, Missouri, Pitt and other expansion candidates only on sports and money.”
I don’t see any evidence that this was the case. Statements about Nebraska causing academic heartburn tend to disagree with it, and I see no way that the Maryland/Rutgers expansion happens if they each had Nebraska academics.”
I can’t work our here WHY “statements about Nebraska causing academic heartburn” tend to disagree with it … it rather confirms it to me. I expect that the Big Ten Presidents knew perfectly well that they were pulling a fast one on the Big Ten Faculty in inviting Nebraska while it still was a member of the AAU, even though its membership was on the chopping block.
But the drop in formal status took place after they were already admitted, when it was too late to reverse the decision … just as heartburn is caused by the meal you already ate.
The sense in which a school in a similar “AAU for now but tenuous” position would have had a problem is rather in the nature of “once bitten, twice shy” … pulling that con job off once is easier than repeating it.
We may well find out in another decade or so, when the Big12 GOR expires, but I believe that unless OkU has made headway in the Red Queen’s academic snobbery race, its not going to make the cut.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank: “The Eastern options are foreclosed for the foreseeable future and the Big Ten is going to have to increase its power to even have a chance at those Eastern options later on.”
To me, this sounds suspiciously like a game of Conference Realignment Risk.
First, I believe that the Big Ten is likely to increase its power over the coming decade with its current alignment. And if the expansion into the northern ends of “college football country” on the Eastern Seaboard does not help the Big Ten increase its power, its not automatically the case that expanding south in the Great Plains into small and relatively slowly growing markets will further increase the power of the Big Ten on a per school basis.
And second, I am not convinced that the premise is valid that the Big Ten HAS TO increase its power relative to either the ACC or the SEC to even have a chance at those Eastern options later on, nor the tacit premise that the mooted expansion does not interfere with possible later Eastern options.
(1) Relative to the ACC, the Big Ten already has stronger academics, more media money and, via the BTN, more resilience in the face of dramatic changes in the media market. (2) If the ACC starts to come apart at the seams, the Big Ten being larger may be a DISadvantage … the disadvantages of size increase at an increasing rate as a conference grows above 12, and it is quite possible that a workable expansion by four to 18 becomes an unworkable expansion by four to 20. (3) Relative to the SEC, the SEC is not going to reverse the existing Big Ten advantages and the Big Ten is not going to reverse the existing SEC advantages, whether or not Kansas and OkU is added.
And (4) expanding to footprint south from the western edge of the Big Ten makes expansion south along the eastern edge more problematic.
LikeLike
“When schools like Oklahoma and Kansas are on the free agent market, you can’t expect them to stay on that free agent market for long.”
We’ve seen this before, in ’11. OU/OkSU board of regents even approved exploring conference affiliation options (the precursor to taking steps to realign) and instead of proceeding OU went to bargain with UT about staying. And then the PAC released a middle of the night statement that twelve was a fine number to stay with (just as B12 meetings were to start). I don’t think either is currently “on the market”, IMHO these are leverage plays over what by comparison seem like lesser issues, that in a decade may contribute to whether anyone is actually available.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Further to the last point, what if the *ACC* is able to get OU and KU (with or without UT)?”
Then OU and KU will quickly get tired of their new conference being dominated by UNC et al and having such ridiculous travel for their non-revenue sports. If OU thinks their fans hate their current home slate, wait until BC, WF, etc come to Norman for football.
“I completely dismiss the idea that adding OU and KU would foreclose further Eastern expansion by the Big Ten.”
Well, you may well have inside info that we don’t. But there has to be some reservation about non-stop expansion. OU and KU would make 16, with only 10 old members. Do they go to 18 or 20 (or more) and risk divisiveness as the new members don’t understand the B10 culture as fully?
“If anything, the only way that the Big Ten can hope to pry away schools like UVA and UNC in the future is to be so overwhelmingly powerful and lucrative that those schools effectively have no other choice.”
They’re projecting B10 payouts of over $40M in a couple of years while the ACC will be in the low- to mid-20s. If roughly $20M a year isn’t enough incentive, then more money won’t matter.
LikeLike
“I completely dismiss the idea that adding OU and KU would foreclose further Eastern expansion by the Big Ten.”
Well, you may well have inside info that we don’t. But there has to be some reservation about non-stop expansion.
I do agree with this. Even at 16 members, you’re going to have schools that seldom play each other. That certainly becomes a problem at 20.
LikeLike
Exactly right. Even more daunting is the thought of TX/OU/KS joining the ACC and trumping the B1G is sports AND athletics AND geography. Either way, the B1G is relegated to second tier status. They should take OU/KS today if they have the opportunity. I personally don’t believe the ACC schools are going anywhere. I do believe, however, if we could land TX/OU/KS, ND would be more likely to join the B1G as a full member in 10-15 years.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Here’s my issue with the argument against an OU/KU expansion by the Big Ten: we need to take into account what happens to the Big Ten’s relative power in the college sports landscape if OU and KU go to a competitor like the SEC or Pac-12.”
That doesn’t sound like thinking like a president. What good is relative sports power if your academics suffer? The academic side is much, much more important to a school, especially in the B10.
“It’s easy to say that the Big Ten should just wait for the chance to get, say, UVA or UNC 20 or 30 years down the road if we are guaranteed that today’s status quo will hold for that time. However, if OU is rattling sabres NOW, that changes things dramatically.”
1. Are they really rattling sabres or are they just stirring the pot?
2. What are the fundamental goals of B10 expansion? Do OU and KU satisfy those goals? Obviously athletic power wasn’t a major concern last time as they chose RU and UMD. Have their goals shifted to athletic power?
3. Is the B10 committed to the mid-Atlantic now that they’ve added UMD? They may deem it a problem to try to grow in both directions and prefer to focus on just two regions of the country.
4. Why can’t they think 14 is big enough? Bigger isn’t always better.
“How much more powerful does the SEC become if it adds yet another top level football brand name like Oklahoma? Heck, even if you’re of the belief that football is going to become less popular over the next generation, how much more valuable is the SEC if it has both Kentucky and Kansas basketball? The way I see it, the SEC adding those brand names can be the difference between the SEC and Big Ten having equal stature financially for the next 10 to 15 years into one where the SEC is clearly #1.”
Do the COPC really care if the SEC make more TV money? The B10 will still be swimming in money compared to others.
Besides, if you are going to use the game theory approach then where is UT in this discussion? If OU and KU stay put, so will UT (at least for a while). Adding OU and KU runs the risk of driving perhaps the most valuable school in all of college sports into another conference. It’s the same argument you always made about pressuring ND. I think adding OU and KU but driving UT elsewhere is a worse outcome than the status quo. Clearly there’s some chance that adding OU can pave the way for UT later, but it seems slim as long as the LHN is out there.
“Likewise, the Pac-12 adding OU and KU can vault them into equal financial stature with the SEC and Big Ten when they were clearly behind them up until now.”
And the COPC would feel bad about their good friends in the P12 being successful?
“(and IMHO, UVA is the only one that would truly consider moving to the Big Ten and we ought to put UNC more in the category of hoping that Notre Dame would join or that Florida would leave the SEC).”
UVA and VT would be a nice pair that solidifies the boundary between the B10 and SEC. Or maybe GT shows interest with UVA (doubtful, IMHO). Or maybe someone else rises up out east.
“If the Big Ten doesn’t take OU and KU if they are truly on the open market, then the SEC or Pac-12 will instead… and that is NOT a positive for the Big Ten.”
That’s a big if. I think most of us are assuming OU and KU staying put is an option. If you told us they had to go somewhere, then you’d hear different responses.
LikeLike
I think you are really limited in looking at the Big 10 and expansion.
“1. Are they really rattling sabres or are they just stirring the pot?
Yes both those institutions would be a benefit to any larger conference, so yes both would like to add them. Would they like to come you ask? That is where making your conference more attractive through larger per school money for both athletics and academics come into play,.
2. What are the fundamental goals of B10 expansion? Do OU and KU satisfy those goals? Obviously athletic power wasn’t a major concern last time as they chose RU and UMD. Have their goals shifted to athletic power?
You can not look at one round or one school and make limited judgments based off that for expansion. You totally ignore Nebraska in your limited view here. It is not a matter of goals shifting but getting the best fit available for the goals (academics and athletics) at the time.
3. Is the B10 committed to the mid-Atlantic now that they’ve added UMD? They may deem it a problem to try to grow in both directions and prefer to focus on just two regions of the country.
Again you are focusing on one small aspect of expansion. B1G ( and every conference) will always look to expand their influence when it benefits it’s members no matter where they are at geographically.
4. Why can’t they think 14 is big enough? Bigger isn’t always better.”
anytime you can increase your conference power for the betterment of all conference schools you do that. If that means adding or not adding schools you do that. Bigger can be better if the right schools are in play.
LikeLike
Adam,
“I think you are really limited in looking at the Big 10 and expansion.”
Fair enough.
“Yes both those institutions would be a benefit to any larger conference,”
Would they? Where’s the proof of that? The B10’s ahead of the B12 without them and is about to take a giant step up in pay with the new TV deal.
“Would they like to come you ask? That is where making your conference more attractive through larger per school money for both athletics and academics come into play,.”
The B10 is already making big money and about to get a big increase. We can’t add schools to make the payout bigger in order to attract those same schools. Our academics certainly aren’t going to get richer for adding OU and KU.
“You can not look at one round or one school and make limited judgments based off that for expansion.”
Of course I can. I asked what the current goals are and pointed out that the evidence clearly shows that athletic prowess didn’t drive the last round (UMD and RU).
“You totally ignore Nebraska in your limited view here.”
No, I just consider them a previous addition to RU and UMD because they were. Even if you lump all three together, the B10 didn’t improve in athletics through those additions.
“It is not a matter of goals shifting but getting the best fit available for the goals (academics and athletics) at the time.”
Goals shift all the time. As you achieve one, you can move on to lower priorities.
“Again you are focusing on one small aspect of expansion.”
All I did was ask a question.
“B1G ( and every conference) will always look to expand their influence when it benefits it’s members no matter where they are at geographically.”
No they don’t. The b10 specifically talks about geography as a factor. Certainly the SEC does too, or they would have added FSU.
“anytime you can increase your conference power for the betterment of all conference schools you do that.”
There’s no proof that getting bigger expands your power. Either it’s 1 vote per school, and schools don’t all toe the conference line, or it’s 1 vote per conference in which case you lose power through expansion.
“Bigger can be better if the right schools are in play.”
Of course it can be better, but it isn’t always better.
LikeLike
“anytime you can increase your conference power for the betterment of all conference schools you do that. If that means adding or not adding schools you do that. Bigger can be better if the right schools are in play.”
But the bigger you get, the more value has to be available to justify the expansion … after all, a growing percentage of the incumbent schools will play the incoming school a smaller number of times in any four year cycle, so each expansion waters down many of the benefits accruing to each individual incumbent in the next round of potential expansion.
LikeLike
Every school in the Big 12 not named “Texas” or “Oklahoma” would be wise to push for expanding to 14 asap. Adding 3 or 4 schools from the East plus perhaps BYU
LikeLike
The Big XII could add 3 or 4 or 10 schools, and it wouldn’t solve their main problem, which is that so many of their members (aside from UT, OK, and KU) are in small markets and aren’t national brand names. Adding more schools with those same problems isn’t the cure.
LikeLike
There is one school available to the Big12 that is a western regional brand name and has, in aggregate, a quite substantial market. In financial and broadening school exposure terms, BYU is the only #11 add out there … all of the other possible additions are #12 adds.
LikeLike
We know that the media contract expands pro-rate for 11 or 12, because President Boren told us so … we don’t know that it expands pro-rata for 13 or 14, which makes an expansion past 12 unlikely.
LikeLike
Besides that, the pro-rata expansion is guaranteed only for this deal. Next deal, the league’s media partners won’t pay arbitrarily for any 11th/12th schools, regardless of actual value.
That is why expansion needs to be considered as a 50-year decision. You’re thinking multiple deals into the future, not just, “What can I make in 2016?”
LikeLike
Of course, if we knew which two schools Boren is pushing when he talks about the benefits of adding “the right two schools”, it would be much clearer what agenda he is pushing.
LikeLike
Alternate hypothesis: when Boren says “with the right schools”, he knows exactly what pair of available schools he wants.
And he’s generating conference realignment smoke to try to get Texas to support his picks.
This is an alternative hypothesis that branches from the OP at: “because, frankly, the “right schools” wouldn’t ever take a Big 12 invite.” If David Boren had looked over the field of ACTUAL available schools and said, “right, we need to take these two, and there’s absolutely no reason that is going to change over the next five years, so might as well do it now”, then “the right two schools” takes on a different color.
One thing we can do on this alternate hypothesis is to rule out schools that COULD possibly change in value over the next five years. So to me, this hypothesis does not fit Memphis or the U_F’s.
That basically leaves as compatible with the hypothesis schools who’s reasons for being included in Big12 expansion speculation is more structural than “they might grow into their market”: BYU, UC, Boise State, and Houston.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13346950/pac-12-commissioner-larry-scott-delighted-12-schools-foresee-expansion
Larry Scott does not foresee further P12 expansion.
Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott is happy with the size of his conference. “I do not see us expanding for the foreseeable future,” he said Thursday. “We are delighted with 12 schools.”
…
“When you go beyond 12, you’re going to dilute,” Scott said.
LikeLike
http://sportspolls.usatoday.com/ncaa/football/polls/coaches-poll/
The preseason Coaches Poll is out.
1. OSU (62)
2. TCU (1)
3. AL (1)
4. Baylor
5. OR
6. MSU
7. AU
8. FSU
9. UGA
10. USC
…
18. WI
By conference:
SEC – 8
P12 – 6
ACC, B10, B12 – 3
Other – ND , Boise
LikeLike
For the record, an eighteen school Big Ten isn’t unthinkable if the right schools are added and appropriate rule changes are enacted. Three divisions of six for football isn’t unworkable.
I think as long as Notre Dame is out there then we have to entertain the thought, no matter how unrealistic (for a variety of reasons).
LikeLike
Yeah, I think 18 is still workable on paper and still maintain a modicum of cohesiveness. Having a 20-school conference is really where you get into a situation where you’re effectively two separate conferences under one name.
LikeLike
Agreed. Five in division and four out of division games isn’t terrible, and if you could get a small playoff for a conference champ (3 + 1), it’d be fairly straightforward.
Though I caution that without Notre Dame or possibly Texas, this will never happen.
Maryland
Rutgers
Penn State
Notre Dame
Indiana
Purdue
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Northwestern/Iowa
Illinois
Iowa/Northwestern
Kansas
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Texas/Missouri
I’m not terribly fond of those divisions, but they’re not horrid. Depending on how you view Penn State and Nebraska, two divisions might are mostly staffed with expansion schools (though personally I think they’re one of us now, and Notre Dame might as well be).
LikeLike
metatron,
“Agreed. Five in division and four out of division games isn’t terrible, and if you could get a small playoff for a conference champ (3 + 1), it’d be fairly straightforward.”
You won’t get that as an extra game. You could schedule it as part of the regular season, though. In the last week, pair 2 division champs plus another versus the top runner up. Everyone else would also need to play a conference game with minimal notice (they could mostly be pre-arranged).
“Though I caution that without Notre Dame or possibly Texas, this will never happen.”
It wouldn’t make sense without them, I agree.
“Maryland
Rutgers
Penn State
Notre Dame
Indiana
Purdue
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Northwestern/Iowa
Illinois
Iowa/Northwestern
Kansas
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Texas/Missouri”
IA has to be with MN and WI and NW with IL. As is, I think IL and NW will miss playing B10 foes to join the B12 division much like IN and PU will miss the B10.
“I’m not terribly fond of those divisions, but they’re not horrid.”
You add ND but don’t make ND/MI and ND/MSU regular games? I know ND wants eastern exposure, but that seems like a waste. I admit there are no great choices with 18. I’d be tempted to lock 4 or 5 schools and rotate the rest.
“Depending on how you view Penn State and Nebraska, two divisions might are mostly staffed with expansion schools (though personally I think they’re one of us now, and Notre Dame might as well be).”
PSU may feel like a member, but NE still a bit new to me. They’ll fit in pretty quickly though.
LikeLike
I’m not going to defend it, it was just an example to get the conversation going.
But frankly, Michigan has to play Ohio State and Michigan State, and that’s a really overloaded division with Notre Dame. Don’t misunderstand me, I’d prefer it (being a Michigan fan), I just think it’s impractical. Then again, we’re talking about an unwieldy super Big Ten.
LikeLike
metatron,
“I’m not going to defend it, it was just an example to get the conversation going.”
I know, I was just commenting on them. You clearly said you didn’t love them.
“But frankly, Michigan has to play Ohio State and Michigan State, and that’s a really overloaded division with Notre Dame.”
If you insist on sticking with 3 groups of 6 that are separate divisions. If you make them pods and split one of them, it works out to two strong divisions.
Anchor 1 = UT, OU, NE, KU, IL, NW
Rotating 1 = WI, IA, MN
Rotating 2 = PSU, RU, UMD
Anchor 2 = OSU, MI, ND, MSU, PU, IN
The kings balance out in the two anchor groups and the two triplets are close enough in strength.
Even better in my opinion is locking 5 teams and playing the others 33% of the time. Top two teams play in the CCG.
LikeLike
Yeah, non-divisional scheduling and top two in the CCG makes the best of the awkwardness of 18. Five locked schools and four rings of three schools lets you play every school once in a three year cycle.
LikeLike
Five in division and four out of division games isn’t terrible…yet…I’m not terribly fond of those divisions, but they’re not horrid.
They’re pretty bad. Illinois and Northwestern are basically banished to the old Big 8, while Indiana and Purdue are eating a steady diet of Eastern schools.
On top of that, as Brian noted, if the Big Ten somehow got Notre Dame, they wouldn’t set it up where the Irish are only rarely playing Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas, and Nebraska; but are playing Maryland, Rutgers, and Indiana every year. Not happening.
Besides, it’s hard to see the benefit of a three-division setup, unless the NCAA approves a 3+1 mini-playoff for the conference title, and I don’t think that’s likely.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Besides, it’s hard to see the benefit of a three-division setup, unless the NCAA approves a 3+1 mini-playoff for the conference title, and I don’t think that’s likely.”
The only benefit I can see is that you are much less likely to have a weak division winner make the CCG. Teams like 6-6 UCLA and 7-5 WI wouldn’t make the CCG because the third division winner would be better. The trade off is that you would often have two equivalent teams fighting for the second CCG spot.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is off the table. The only conference they can join before 2027 is the ACC (because of contracts), and the ACC is the best fit for them by far. Notre Dame is a very bad fit for the B1G, and the bad after taste after the last go around makes it impossible.
Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are the only viable candidates for B1G expansion. Take two and call me in the morning.
Nothing can happen until 2026.
LikeLike
Mizzou is building up equity in the SECN … its be silly to abandon that to start from scratch with the BTN. There’s also the fact that they are now in the SEC, and schools don’t have any reason to leave the SEC.
LikeLike
If the NCAA would approve a 3+1 mini-playoff for the conference title, then why not approve a 13-game season instead, and then play ten conference games. The total money from the nine additional conference games would be greater than the total money from the two play-off games.
LikeLike
(actually three six-school divisions was the subject of my first FtF post)
LikeLike
If the NCAA would approve a 3+1 mini-playoff for the conference title, then why not approve a 13-game season instead, and then play ten conference games. The total money from the nine additional conference games would be greater than the total money from the two play-off games.
I don’t think the NCAA will approve a 3+1 mini-playoff for the conference title. There is a real issue as to when the extra games could be played — even assuming you want them — without impinging on final exams, the holidays, and bowl preparation.
Besides, there are hardly ever four teams in the same conference, with a legitimate argument that they deserve to be the champ. There is therefore no logical competitive reason for those extra games to exist. This is in contrast to the CFB playoff, where there definitely are sometimes more than two teams with a serious argument that they deserve to be playing in a national championship game. (Last year, the BCS probably would’ve pitted Alabama vs. FSU in the national title game, and it turned out neither of them was the best.)
There is always a lot of whingeing about “de-valuing the regular season,” much of it ignorant or disingenuous. The four-team playoff does not de-value the regular season, because it is still extremely difficult to be one of those teams. You can never afford a week off, since, as Baylor and TCU learned last year, even one loss can knock you out. That will always be true, as long as there are more power conferences than playoff spots. But a 3+1 mini-playoff for the conference title, really would de-value the regular season, as the fourth-best team in a given conference can be a quite ordinary team. Sometimes, a conference’s fourth-place team isn’t even in the top 25. And yet, that fourth-best team would be given a theoretical shot at the national championship, if only they could get hot for a few weeks at the end of the year.
Of course, conferences can do the 3+1 playoff now, if they want, by making the last weekend of the 12-game regular season a flex week, with match-ups not decided until after the preceding weekend. However, there are some serious disadvantages to that system, since schools would have only a week to sell tickets. That would probably not pose an issue for the host teams of the two games that matter, but it would suck for everyone else.
Not that it’ll ever happen, but a 13-game regular season makes more sense than a 3+1 mini-playoff, because then every team would get the benefit of playing one more game. However, for most teams in most years, it would basically mean no bye weeks, and there are serious concerns about the wear and tear on the players’ bodies.
LikeLike
That 18 is exactly where I think we’ll end up, perhaps way down the line.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Yeah, I think 18 is still workable on paper and still maintain a modicum of cohesiveness. Having a 20-school conference is really where you get into a situation where you’re effectively two separate conferences under one name.”
You really think 2 schools makes that much of a difference?
18 = 1 x 18 (1 conference), 2 x 9 (2 divisions), 3 x 6 (3 divisions), 2 x 6 + 2 x 3 (4 pods) or 2 x 4 + 2 x 5 (4 pods)
1 x 18 = 4 x 100% + 13 x 38% (5 times every 13 years)
2 x 9 = 8 x 100% + 9 x 11% (once every 9 years)
3 x 6 = 5 x 100% + 12 x 33% (once every 3 years) – note that 1 division champ misses CCG
2 x 6 + 2 x 3 =
5 x 100% + 6 x 50% + 6 x 17% (once every 6 years) OR
2 x 100% + 12 x 50% + 3 x 33% (once every 3 years)
2 x 4 + 2 x 5 =
3 x 100% + 10 x 50% + 4 x 25% (once every 4 years) OR
4 x 100% + 8 x 50% + 5 x 20% (once every 5 years)
20 = 1 x 20 (1 conference), 2 x 10 (2 divisions), 2 x 6 + 2 x 4 (4 pods) or 4 x 5 (4 pods)
1 x 20 = 4 x 100% + 15 x 33% (once every 3 years)
2 x 9 = 8 x 100% + 9 x 11% (once every 9 years)
3 x 6 = 5 x 100% + 12 x 33% (once every 3 years)
2 x 6 + 2 x 3 =
5 x 100% + 6 x 50% + 6 x 17% (once every 6 years) OR
2 x 100% + 12 x 50% + 3 x 33% (once every 3 years)
2 x 4 + 2 x 5 =
3 x 100% + 10 x 50% + 4 x 25% (once every 4 years) OR
4 x 100% + 8 x 50% + 5 x 20% (once every 5 years)
LikeLike
metatron,
“For the record, an eighteen school Big Ten isn’t unthinkable if the right schools are added and appropriate rule changes are enacted.”
It’s not unthinkable, it just has a lot of downsides. The right 4 might provide sufficient benefits to make it worthwhile.
“Three divisions of six for football isn’t unworkable.”
No, but it’s a pain. One division winner is always left out of the CCG. I’m sure that’ll be popular. The divisions will also be unpopular no matter how you make them.
“I think as long as Notre Dame is out there then we have to entertain the thought, no matter how unrealistic (for a variety of reasons).”
Agreed. Until they are fully in a conference, ND always has to be a factor in the planning.
LikeLike
If CCG is deregulated enough to allow for three divisions of six, its also deregulated enough to allow for non-divisional scheduling.
LikeLike
“Lubbock or Dallas, which one would be better for the SECN?”
Neither. Learn your geography. TCU is not in Dallas, it is in Fort Worth. It is a small church school. There is not a big TCU following in Dallas. SMU is in Dallas.. Lubbock is a dust bowl 8 hours from College Station. Baton Rouge is just as close. Neither Tech nor TCU offers the SEC anything. Weak academics aside, follow the tv dollars. Not enough $ets$. Interstate 35 basically divides the state of Texas east from west. The great majority of sets are in the eastern half. Tech brings nothing.
LikeLike
I still say Baylor would be the best of the Texas schools for the SEC. It brings you to the I-35 corridor (Dallas -Ft. Worth – Austin – San Antonio) without being in desert. Im sure there’s more than smattering of Baptists across SEC land that would be for it. The athletic programs are on the upswing. Texas Tech if anything would be hoping for a Pac12 invite.
LikeLike
Delaney knows the end game. Wait on TX, like they did with ND, and you are left with Iowa State and TCU. Court OK and KU – then the big balls have to choose. So be it they go elsewhere. OK to SEC … Big Ten settles with Iowa state and such after the dust settles. Take the brands available.
LikeLike
The B10 would stay at 14 before they’d add TCU or ISU. You don’t have to expand. Nobody will force every conference to have 16 schools.
LikeLike
OK is looking and that’s the point. No one has to expand, but if you have OK looking you better get them now bc once they are gone then you are left with zero expansion while the SEC, ACC, AND PAC 12 get some of the better teams. So it OK, or nada, or stuck with ISU.
Btw i would like to see ISU with KU and OK and a team TBD.
LikeLike
Gene,
“OK is looking and that’s the point.”
Are they, or is Boren running his mouth for his own reasons? Until I hear they have a plan to break the GoR, I don’t buy it. You don’t have to jump now to get schools that will likely be in the same place 7 or 8 years from now. I doubt the B10 wants to set the precedent of destroying a GoR, either.
“No one has to expand, but if you have OK looking you better get them now bc once they are gone then you are left with zero expansion while the SEC, ACC, AND PAC 12 get some of the better teams. So it OK, or nada, or stuck with ISU.”
If OU really wanted to go to the SEC, they could already be there. The P12 won’t take them without a solid partner (not OkSU). They aren’t joining the ACC. OU doesn’t have to leave the B12 unless it crumbles, and it won’t crumble unless OU and/or UT leave. Since UT can’t keep the LHN without the B12, I doubt they want to leave any time soon.
As for better teams, the only plausible schools the B10 might want as far as we can tell are ND, UT, UVA, UNC, GT and maybe OU, KU and MO. It would take something major to get the ACC schools out of the ACC, I think. MO isn’t leaving the SEC. ND and UT are happy as is.
Nada is a perfectly fine result. The world won’t end for the B10 if OU and KU go elsewhere.
“Btw i would like to see ISU with KU and OK and a team TBD.”
There is zero chance the B10 adds a second team in IA. It makes no financial sense. ISU’s academics aren’t so great that the B10 schools want to lose money just to add them.
LikeLike
I think OK is looking. When was the last time you heard someone say “we need to expand our conference, and if we don’t then we are fine with the status quo.” Certainly he did not say they were jumping ship, but he did say they need to expand. I am just connecting the dots. If they don’t expand then….? Then what? Two options. No expansion and OK says we are fine with status quo OR we are looking. Those are the only two options, and IMO you don’t end it with or the status quo is fine.” No one in any sense, in in walk of life, talks or thinks like that. He was making a statement that the Big 12 needs to expand. He isn’t happy. So I am making an assumption that means they might leave. He is putting it out there for a reason.
Its a long process and he is getting the ball rolling now – either to expand or leave. Basically if they don’t expand then he can fall back on “I told you so” and “OK is being hurt by only having 10 teams, and we MUST LEAVE to ensure the success and brand of OK football and the Univeristy of OK.” These are warning shots done on purpose. He said these things for a reason.
Why Big 10 takes OK? BC they might not be perfect but or close enough that if the SEC gets them then basically the Big 12 is doomed and you end up with Iowa State. You are right the big 10 doesn’t have to expand nor do they need to expand. But do they want to be the conference that is second rate to the SEC (add OK and whomever) and the ACC or pac 12 (TX anyone.)
Think of the movie a beautiful mind. Same situation.. All the conference lust over TX and ND but getting an OK that’s pretty close to perfect is better than holding the bag. And by getting OK you then have a better shot to land TX and/or ND. BC once one big 12 team leaves, even if it were the likes of an Iowa State, every other school will be looking. They have been through this and all the teams see the writing on the wall. Expand or die (in the case of the Big 12.)
LikeLike
“I think OK is looking. When was the last time you heard someone say “we need to expand our conference, and if we don’t then we are fine with the status quo.” Certainly he did not say they were jumping ship, but he did say they need to expand. I am just connecting the dots.”
That’s the point … if he was trying to swing the conference to an actually available expansion that he prefers, then saying “we need to expand” while leaving others to fill in the unstated “or else …” is one obvious strategy for trying to do that.
The clout that Texas has is that if Texas decides to leave, the Big12 likely collapses as a Power Conference. So if Texas is pushing for wait and see and give time for different alternatives to mature into more appealing expansions … Boren may feel the need to remind others in the Big12 that Oklahoma in the Big12 is one of the arguments within Texas staying.
LikeLike
Gene,
“I think OK is looking.”
Okay.
“He was making a statement that the Big 12 needs to expand. He isn’t happy. So I am making an assumption that means they might leave.”
1. He’s in his 70s and won’t be president much longer. His wishes aren’t really important.
2. I think the boosters are more unhappy than he is.
3. He may be saying that, but CCG deregulation is likely to pass so that they could have a CCG by 2016. That’s the main benefit of getting to 12 right now.
4. As soon as he names 2 or more solid candidates for the B12, then I’ll listen. The other schools aren’t going to expand to lose money. Will OU really be any happier with BYU and Memphis in the conference?
5. The threat is pretty empty until the GoR is ending or OU announces a plan for how to break a GoR and another conference agrees to take that risk. Not only that, it would put all future GoRs at risk including their own.
“He is putting it out there for a reason.”
He could have many reasons. OU wanting to leave the B12 doesn’t have to be it.
“Why Big 10 takes OK? BC they might not be perfect but or close enough that if the SEC gets them then basically the Big 12 is doomed and you end up with Iowa State.”
There is no reasonable circumstance under which the B10 ends up adding ISU. The B10 adds OU or it doesn’t, ISU is never a factor. The worst possible outcome is adding schools that hurt the B10. The best outcome is having expansion help the B10. There is no real evidence that adding OU and KU would help the B10 overall. It would help in some ways and hurt in others. It’s not even assured that the per school payout would increase. A perfectly viable outcome is doing nothing.
“But do they want to be the conference that is second rate to the SEC (add OK and whomever) and the ACC or pac 12 (TX anyone.)”
The B10’s number one concern is academics since they are universities, not sports franchises. #2 is money, because that can impact academics. #3 at best is whether the SEC is better at football or not. The SEC is already better at football and worse at basketball. No addition of OU and KU by either side will change that.
“Think of the movie a beautiful mind.”
Never saw the whole thing.
“Same situation.”
I really doubt it. Universities are not mentally unbalanced mathematicians.
“… but getting an OK that’s pretty close to perfect is better than holding the bag.”
Is it? By how much?
“And by getting OK you then have a better shot to land TX and/or ND.”
ND is never joining the B10. They’d physically move their entire campus to the east coast before they’d join the B10. UT is almost as unattainable for the B10 with distance, culture, rivals and the LHN all as major obstacles.
“BC once one big 12 team leaves, even if it were the likes of an Iowa State, every other school will be looking.”
The only schools that matter are UT, OU and KU. Nobody has any interest in adding any of the others, but 1 or 2 two of them might get lumped into a deal. Besides, the remaining schools will collect a ton of exit fees/damages if those schools leave. I don’t see any of them getting antsy until after 2020 as the GoR gets closer to its end.
LikeLike
Totally agree. I’ve become increasingly content with the BIG@14. There’s plenty of long-term potential with Md and Rutgers.
I’ve grown tired of certain BIG fans gushing on other team boards about expansion.
I entertain expansion threads but in the context, especially now, that an 8 team playoff may manifest, FBS contracts to 80 teams at most, thus 4 mega conferences field 8 playoff sports. Will any of the above happen? Not sure. An 8 team playoff will come before some legislative body goes down a controversial road of telling a number of current FBS programs to convert to FCS.
The BIG was a great conference with significant history even before 11, 12, 13 and 14 were added.
The BIG simply needs to work with what they have & continue to field at least 3 genuine NC threats in fb in a given year (PSU, Neb, Mi and OSU are certainly tradition rich programs & MSU and Wisky have been rising & more consistent). And damn it, the BIG needs to win a men’s bb title for a change – I’ve ranted before & I’ll do it again: the BIG has way too many runners up the past 20 plus years. The conference needs to keep the talent in the footprint. There are so many examples of BIG footprint kids who have migrated south and won a NC. Okafor and Jones are the latest examples – Illinois and Minnesota products.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@gfunk
Like you I am perfectly content with B1G@14.
But like Frank I believe that the Big Ten has ambitions to become a national conference rather than a regional conference.The less schools to achieve this aim, the more money per school.
How about this “stoner idea”?
The CIC to collectively establish Global Off-Campus Degree Programs for international students:
The B1GU
LikeLike
(now if I can only get this damn “Low Rider” song out of my head)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Big 12 teams that the Big Ten would take, in order of desirability.
1. UT
2. OU
3. KU
Teams that the Big Ten would never take, even if their conference were to expand to 18 or 20 teams.
The other seven…including Iowa State.
Glad you’ve joined us in this realignment discussion…just a friendly primer for you since you are new.
LikeLike
I think OK sees the fact that NE and A&M and Mizzu all flourishing without TX. Plus they feel without a CGame they may be left out of the playoffs. Not certain it will go to 8 anytime soon. At the end of the day I do think the Big 12 does expand, but if they don’t OK will be looking and regardless of agreements will get their way. But the Big 12 will just add two mediocre teams and call it a day.
LikeLike
It’s like the movie A Beautiful Mind.
OK and KU aren’t TX or ND, but they are as close as you can get right now.
LikeLike
That doesn’t mean they are good enough. Sometimes doing nothing is the better decision.
LikeLike
OK and KU aren’t TX or ND, but they are as close as you can get right now.
I totally agree with Brian that any expansion proposal needs to be compared with the option of doing nothing. No league has to expand (unless, like the Big 12 a few years ago, you’ve been so heavily poached that you’re in danger of extinction). And expansions sometimes fail, which means the advantages need to be extremely compelling, not just ‘good enough’.
These are 50-year decisions, which means they have to be quite a bit better than merely “as close as you can get right now.” Sometimes, you have to wait awhile for the right opportunity.
The Big Ten stood pat at 11 schools for 21 years before they added Nebraska.
If they’d wanted 14, merely for the sake of being at 14, they could’ve kept adding schools: plenty of other decent programs were available for the asking. But no, they waited till they saw something they considered truly compelling, which was Maryland, and then added the best available 14th school to go with it, which was Rutgers.
(As erstwhile FTT contributor Andy has often pointed out, before Missouri joined the SEC, they would’ve accepted a Big Ten invite in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, at that time there was no 14th school available that made sense to them; and by the time Maryland was available, Missouri no longer was. That’s how it goes sometimes.)
It must be reiterated that expansion doesn’t just create opportunities; it takes also certain options away, since there is surely a maximum size, beyond which a conference cannot expand. At the very least, expansion always means that some long-standing rivalries are played less often.
Now, I do think that the Nebraska decision amounted to a recognition that Notre Dame was never going to join. But we really don’t know what Texas would do if Oklahoma and Kansas were no longer in the Big XII. It’s hard to imagine the Longhorns remaining in a “Big One, Little Nine” kind of league, which means they’d have to do something. If I’m Jim Delany, I want to know what that is, before I make a move.
LikeLike
If we are talking about UT/KU/OU…I think we might as well mention that Missouri is not bound by a GOR in the SEC.
LikeLike
Which is equally as valid as talking about Nebraska going back to the Big XII.
LikeLike
Indeed, neither is Kentucky. Contiguous flagship school, good BBall, in the #78-104 tier in the AWRU/US rankings. And they make Vanderbilt contiguous, and they are #35 AWRU/US and an AAU member to boot. And then Georgia is contiguous, (AWRU/US #65-77), which opens up Florida (#44 & AAU member).
A basic difference between the UKY/Vandy/UGA/Florida and the UT/KU/OkU/somebody expansion is that the first is implausible all through the 2020’s and the latter gains some small measure of plausibility as the Big12 GOR comes closer to its expiration date.
LikeLike
Pingback: ACC Football Roundup: Expansion, Friday Nights, Top 25 Poll | Louisville Sports Live - Your source for all University of Louisville sports talk all the time.
When did Kansas become a hot prospect? A few years back (P16 proposal) Kansas was hoping to catch a bid for the Big East with ISU and Baylor. With the rumors of A&M splitting for the SEC KS was offered a contingent seat, officially ranking them the 9th most valuable school in the old XII, ahead of only KSU, ISU, and Baylor. The B1G could have taken KS (and/or MO) when they took NE. The B1G took a pass at that time and nothing has changed to make KS more valuable. Frank used to say that Football drives the bus. There just is not the TV value in a basketball school. The B1G already has many top basketball schools, with most also have decent football, something that cannot be said for Kansas. The B1G already has Illinois holding down the slot KS holds in the XII.
Kansas football is not even close to Kentucky’s. Kentucky at least puts some effort in football; it had average attendance of 57K in 2014 compared to 34K for Kansas.
LikeLike
“The B1G could have taken KS (and/or MO) when they took NE. The B1G took a pass at that time and nothing has changed to make KS more valuable.”
At the time there wasn’t a 13th to make the Big Ten look for a 14th, so that is not a test of whether Kansas is good enough to be the #16 add to go along with a #15.
When Maryland became available, Mizzou was already in the SEC while Kansas had already signed a GOR while Rutgers was in the crumbling old Big East, so that isn’t really an empirical test either of whether or not Kansas stacks up as a workable #16 to go along with a desired #15.
Now, personally, I’m skeptical that OkU is really that strong of an add for the Big Ten … to me, “OkU and Kansas are the strongest pair likely to be available until the waning days of the ACC GOR” sounds an awful lot like, “there is not likely to be any Big Ten expansion until the waning days of the ACC GOR”.
But if the Big Ten would want to go for OkU, I don’t think we have a firm read on whether Kansas is a “good enough” second school as part of that expansion.
LikeLike
“The B1G could have taken KS (and/or MO) when they took NE. The B1G took a pass at that time and nothing has changed to make KS more valuable.”
At the time there wasn’t a 13th to make the Big Ten look for a 14th, so that is not a test of whether Kansas is good enough to be the #16 add to go along with a #15.
This is absolutely right. Bear in mind that conferences generally expand to even numbers. (I know the Big Ten stood at 11 teams for 21 years, but that is not the norm.)
Expansion that gives you an odd number is usually a strong expansion: odd numbers are awkward, so it really has to be compelling. The expansion that gives you an even number is often weaker: taking the best school available, even if not the greatest, simply to get up to (or back up to) equal-sized divisions.
Examples are: Maryland (stronger), Rutgers (weaker); Colorado (stronger), Utah (weaker); Texas A&M (stronger), Missouri (weaker). In each case, the “odd-numbered school” was the stronger addition, the “even-numbered school” the weaker.
This is not to say they were bad additions. Missouri football is fitting into the SEC pretty well, winning its division each of the last two years. But A&M was clearly the plum that the SEC wanted. Missouri would never have been the SEC’s 13th school, nor the Big Ten’s.
Likewise, Maryland (odd) was the impetus behind the Big Ten’s last expansion, with Rutgers (even) tagging along; and Colorado (odd) was the impetus behind the Pac-12’s last expansion, with Utah (even) coming afterward.
Kansas is a typical “even-numbered school”. It will ride with a more compelling “odd-numbered” partner.
Bear in mind, the current CCG rules provide an additional reason to have even numbers, beyond avoiding mere awkwardness. I suspect that Penn State wouldn’t have come to the Big Ten alone, if it had joined in the CCG era. It could be that if the CCG is de-regulated, conferences will no longer mind odd numbers as much. That could be bad news for Kansas.
But odd numbers still have significant disadvantages: it means one school in the conference finishes its season earlier than all the others. The team with the bye on the final weekend could be one of the CCG participants: it would get an extra week to prepare for that game, and rest its starters.
LikeLike
Yeah, the BigTen at 11 was like the empty seat at Passover … that was Notre Dame’s spot, until the BigTen finally got used to the idea that Notre Dame just wasn’t going to take it.
LikeLike
Actually, Missouri was looking at the Big East with Kansas at the time too and they landed in the SEC. That’s all that is, a snapshot in time where others were higher up the priority list.
LikeLike
DIVISION IV
4 Divisions comprised of 2 conferences each. Each conference is comprised of 9 teams that share historic, cultural, and/or geographic ties.
FOOTBALL
Season
8 Conference Games*
2 Divisional Games*
2 Inter-division Games
*count toward conference record
Post Season
8 conference champs are seeded to play in tournament for championship
16 bowl committees choose opponents from remaining teams on live broadcast. All bowl games are completed prior to start of championship tournament.
BASKETBALL
Season
16 Conference games*
4 Divisional games*
6 Inter-divisional games
4 NCAA games (non-Division IV)
*count toward conference record
Conference Tournaments
The bottom 2 seeds have a play-in game. Winner of each tournament gets automatic bid to Division IV tourney.
Division IV Tournament
16 automatic bids and top remaining 32 Division IV teams and top 16 NCAA teams are selected and seeded.
LikeLike
Big 18
Great Lakes Conference
1. Ohio St
2. Michigan
3. Michigan State
4. Wisconsin
5. Penn St
6. Indiana
7. Purdue
8. Illinois
9. Northwestern
Great Plains Conference
10. Texas
11. Oklahoma
12. Nebraska
13. Kansas
14. K State
15. Oklahoma St
16. Iowa State
17. Iowa
18. Minnesota
LikeLike
Eastern Division
Atlantic Coast Conference
1. North Carolina
2. Duke
3. NC State
4. Wake Forest
5. Virginia
6. Clemson
7. Georgia Tech
8. Miami
9. Florida St.
Metroplis Conference
10. Notre Dame
11. Louisville
12. Syracuse
13. Connecticut
14. Boston College
15. Rutgers
16. Pittsburgh
17. Cincinnati
18. Maryland
LikeLike
Southern Division
Southeastern Conference
1. Alabama
2. Georgia
3. Florida
4. LSU
5. Auburn
6. South Carolina
7. Ole Miss
8. Miss State
9. Texas A&M
Appalachian Conference
10. Kentucky
11. Tennesee
12. Memphis
13. Vanderbilt
14. Virginia Tech
15. West Vigrinia
16. Arkansas
17. Missouri
18. TCU
LikeLike
Western Division
Pacific Coast Conference
1. USC
2. UCLA
3. Stanford
4. California
5. Oregon
6. Oregon State
7. Washington
8. Washington State
9. Arizona
Southwestern Conference
10. BYU
11. Utah
12. Baylor
13. Texas Tech
14. Colorado
15. Boise St.
16. UNLV
17. Arizona State
18. New Mexico
LikeLike
Interesting, but wow on my alma mater, a charter member of the original BIG, as well Iowa heading to the Great Plains Conference – surrounded by the BIG8-12. Minny is more corn belt than rust belt, but it’s certainly a Great Lakes state.
LikeLike
dob,
“4 Divisions comprised of 2 conferences each. Each conference is comprised of 9 teams that share historic, cultural, and/or geographic ties.”
1. Why would the P5 schools agree to this? It adds several more mouths to feed at the top level.
2. It seems like a lot of lost historic ties (WI and MN are split, IA to the old Big 8, etc).
“Season
8 Conference Games*
2 Divisional Games*
2 Inter-division Games
*count toward conference record”
Why should divisional games count towards the conference record when conferences are subsets of divisions in your plan? They play a full round robin, that should be sufficient. I could see using divisional games as tiebreakers, perhaps, but not part of the conference record.
“8 conference champs are seeded to play in tournament for championship”
They’ve never used winning your conference as a mandatory criteria to make the playoff (BCS or CFP). Why would they start now? There’ll always bee a weak champion that doesn’t deserve it and a runner up that does.
LikeLike
NCAA wins stay of Wilkin’s injunction,
http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/jon-solomon/25255702/inside-college-sports-jim-delany-cautions-patience-on-obannon-payments
LikeLike
It’s the correct decision if they still haven’t made up their mind son the appeal yet.
LikeLike
… minds on …
LikeLike
Whoa, poor MVC-F about to get poorer with no payout games.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/big-ten-mandates-power-5-foe–no-fcs-opponents-in-2016-170047387.html
LikeLike
The B10 announced their plan to drop I-AA teams going forward quite a while ago.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25255626/new-big-ten-schedule-commitment-at-least-one-power-five-game-no-fcs
What’s new is the B10 is also adding a mandatory P5 OOC game.
They call the plan 1910:
1 P5 OOC game
9 B10 games
1 CCG
0 I-AA games
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2015/07/31/big-ten-schedule-nine-league-games-no-fcs-teams-2016/30938987/
The B10 is selling this as a boon for fans and players, and a push to increase SOS for the CFP.
But the Big Ten’s new criteria is influenced most heavily by the impact of the College Football Playoff, and specifically in how the 13-member selection committee culls through relevant data and metrics to select its four participants.
…
In 2014, the Playoff’s first season of existence, the committee valued a team’s overall résumé — the strength of schedule, conference championships, quality of victories — over a mere won-loss record.
Baylor, for example, which was left out of the final four teams despite sharing the Big 12 title, was dented by its weak nonconference schedule; the Big 12 as a whole was slighted for its lack of a conference title game, and Ohio State leaped into the top four thanks in large part to its convincing victory against Wisconsin to claim the Big Ten championship.
“With the new Playoff and with the direction of the (selection) committee, they’re not focused just on won-loss records,” Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott told USA TODAY Sports. “I mean, you can’t ignore won-loss records. But we know, at the end of the day there’s going to be teams with comparable records.
“And the signal’s been sent from commissioners to the committee, and (committee chairman) Jeff Long’s made this painfully clear: we’re going to be looking at who did you play and who did you beat.”
Said Delany, “I’m not sure people have paid as much attention to the guidelines for the selection of teams. There are about eight paragraphs that deal with the issue of when resumes look similar. Similar record, similar rèsumès. Conference champions are going to get the first tiebreaker consideration and strength of schedule is going to get the second.”
What isn’t mentioned is that this starts just before the new TV deal, so Delany can use it as leverage in negotiations. Networks now know there will be the following every season:
63 B10 games
14 or more B10 vs P5 OOC games (roughly half at home)
28 or fewer B10 vs G5 OOC games (mostly at home)
0 B10 vs I-AA games (eventually – already scheduled games will be played)
105 total games
Compare that to this year:
56 B10 games
17 B10 vs P5 OOC games
32 B10 vs G5 OOC games
7 B10 vs I-AA games
112 total games
The new package will be a lot more valuable to the networks. The B10 games are mostly a known quantity at this point, and adding 7 more increases the chances of a king/king crossover game. In addition, 73% of games will feature 2 P5 teams instead of 65%. That means better OOC choices to put on air (fewer MACrifices), and thus more value. Likewise, the end of I-AA games drives value. In addition, the B10 is moving B10 games into September so there won’t be any more MACrifice weekends when nobody plays a decent team. Don’t forget the increase in night games, especially in November. That all adds up to a lot of extra value over the old package.
All these things help explain the huge jump in TV money expected in the next TV deal.
LikeLike
I think this is FAR more about TV revenue than playoff strength-of-schedule.
If you replace Kent State with an FCS team on Ohio State’s 2014 schedule, do they miss the playoff? I don’t think so. Baylor missed the playoff, not so much because they had Northwestern State on their schedule, but because they didn’t play a CCG, and their entire non-conference slate was fairly weak: Buffalo (a mediocre MAC squad) and SMU (horrific), plus the aforementioned Northwestern State.
Replacing the occasional FCS opponent with a mid-major will only rarely, and maybe never, be the differentiating factor in whether the Big Ten champion makes the playoff. But by banishing those games and insisting on at least one P5 opponent, you upgrade the whole schedule for all 14 members, creating quite a bit more watchable inventory.
LikeLike
It also helps attendance. Some ADs may have quietly been happy to have the B10 “force” them to drop I-AAs to save them battling the coach on this issue.
LikeLike
A lot of times its the AD. They prefer paying 500k to Indiana St. instead of a million to Ball St.
LikeLike
They’ll still get buy games, they just won’t be against the BigTen.
LikeLike
Much has been made of AAU membership, and there is some value in that identification.
of the 63 American AAU members (McGill and Toronoto in Canada are the other members), 33 are P5 schools and 3 (Buffalo, Rice, Tulane) are G5 schools. This accounts for half the P5 schools.
But there is a 2nd research group, the URA (Universities Research Association) with 83 members, 77 in the US, including 29 of the 33 P5 AAU schools (Georgia Tech, Kansas, Missouri, USC are not in URA). Of the URA schools not in the AAU there are 13 P5 members:
Alabama, Arizona State, Florida State, Notre Dame, LSU, Mississippi, Nebraska, Syracuse, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas Tech, Virginia Tech.
(Surprised Utah, Georgia, and Kentucky are not members, given R&D spending levels)
Only OU is a realignment possibility.
The G5 schools:
Houston, North Texas, SMU, New Mexico, New Mexico State, Colorado State, Northern Illinois
(surprised Hawaii, Cincy and UAB are not members, although UAB is all the med school)
Like the AAU, the URA is primarily a lobbying group. Your federal tax money accounts for something like 68% of the R&D budgets, private barely 10%. The URA member schools gives you an idea of some non-AAU members are potential candidates for future AAU membership.
http://www.ura-hq.org/about/index.html
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2015/07/where_will_ohio_state_play_if.html
A look at an interesting, but totally hypothetical, question.
If OSU makes the CFP as the #1 seed, where should they play? The semifinals will be in the Orange Bowl and the Cotton Bowl this year, both a little over 1000 miles from Columbus.
This same question applies to any northern or western team and even southern teams nearly halfway between the two.
If the Buckeyes are No. 1, and they are an overwhelming No. 1 right now, they get the preference on the site. Look at the protocol for the College Football Playoff Committee.
“When assigning teams to sites, the committee will place the top two seeds at the most advantageous sites, weighing criteria such as convenience of travel for its fans, home-crowd advantage or disadvantage and general familiarity with the host city and its stadium. Preference will go to the No. 1 seed.”
Which site is that for Ohio State?
Sun Life Stadium, home of the Orange Bowl, is 1,142 miles from Ohio Stadium.
AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas, is 1,060 miles from Ohio Stadium.
What’s more convenient? What’s more familiar?
“It’s a good question,” Reid Sigmon, the CFO of the College Football Playoff, told Northeast Ohio Media Group on Friday at the Big Ten Media Days. “It will be determined by the committee on that day.”
Sigmon said the committee probably wouldn’t ask the Buckeyes what they preferred. The committee didn’t do that last year. It determined the top four seeds and assigned the games. And the site selection was incredibly easy.
…
… The Big Ten does have a limited arrangement with the Orange Bowl, but would that be enough to swing things? So what always matters, but may matter most if the Buckeyes are a No. 1 seed, is their opponent and home crowd disadvantage.
As Sigmon explained, if Ohio State is No. 1 and a team like Miami (or say Florida State or Florida) is No. 4, the committee wouldn’t want to send the Buckeyes to the Orange Bowl. That scenario would send them to the Cotton Bowl.
Or consider this more likely scenario – Ohio State is No. 1 and either TCU or Baylor, two legit playoff contenders, is No. 4. That would send that matchup to the Orange Bowl.
“You don’t want to disadvantage the higher seed. But there are other factors,” Sigmon said. “You could have other quirks. We try to avoid hypotheticals just because you could drive yourself crazy.”
So Sigmon said simply that the first criteria, really, for the determining the 1-4 game is “where would it make the most sense.”
Without knowing the opponent, I’d give the Orange a slight edge with all the B10 transplants in FL.
Based on the teams in the Coaches Poll:
Orange – TCU, Baylor, LSU, OU, AR, MO
Cotton – FSU, UGA, Clemson, GT
No difference – AL, OR, MSU, AU, USC, ND, UCLA, MS, ASU, WI, Stanford, AZ, Boise, TN
I think the other 2 teams would decide the issue most of the time (can’t give #3 home field advantage if #1 doesn’t care where they play).
LikeLike
Trick question. They SHOULD play in the Rose Bowl…
LikeLike
The article does talk about that and how it wouldn’t have been an issue last year. The lack of a northern bowl in the semifinal mix is an issue for things like this.
LikeLike
Sorry. I was being obtuse. Just my obligatory statement against the playoff idea in general. You know, old guy resisting change, etc…
LikeLike
Preaching to the choir with me.
LikeLike
I know the proposed ND v. BIG12 pre-playoff is far upthread, but how would home field play out: 1. always a Home campus game for the B12 champ. 2. Permanent texas site (e.g. Alamodome) 3. Or alternates between b12 and ND (or Soldier/Luke/Ford dp on availability and where other CCGs situate in a given year), whether by even/odd year or by ranking.
LikeLike
urbanleftbehind,
“I know the proposed ND v. BIG12 pre-playoff is far upthread, but how would home field play out: 1. always a Home campus game for the B12 champ.”
No way.
“2. Permanent texas site (e.g. Alamodome)”
Maybe Houston? Or Jerryworld?
“3. Or alternates between b12 and ND (or Soldier/Luke/Ford dp on availability and where other CCGs situate in a given year), whether by even/odd year or by ranking.”
This would be my guess. I’d expect ND to use it for regional exposure, though so maybe they choose Phoenix and New Orleans (or KC just to annoy NE fans).
LikeLike
I know the proposed ND v. BIG12 pre-playoff is far upthread, but how would home field play out?
Hard to say, as I think it was meant as a Swiftean modest proposalL: not intended as a serious suggestion that might be adopted, but meant to show what happens if seemingly attractive ideas are taken to the outer limits of their logic.
LikeLike
http://big12fanatics.com/why-custom-fios-matters/
Excellent, well researched article on cable un-bundling and or re-bundling and how that impacts ESPN and college sports. Verizon FIOS structure which ESPN is suing them over is discussed.
LikeLike
Bullet,
Great article, thanks for sharing…
LikeLike
And the article didn’t even discuss the ramifications of fiber broadband (Google Fiber, etc.) companies competing with the existing cable and telecom companies. This, too, will begin to have impact within 5 years.
LikeLike
Disney head expects separate ESPN packages sometime after the next 5years.
http://blogs.wsj.com/cmo/2015/07/27/disneys-bob-iger-inevitable-that-espn-goes-direct-to-consumer/?mod-mktw
Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Bob Iger said on CNBC Monday morning that “there’s an inevitability” to ESPN peeling itself away from the traditional pay TV bundle.
“I think eventually ESPN becomes a business that is sold directly to the consumers,” Mr. Iger said.
ESPN, which is majority-owned by Disney, could use information from that direct consumer relationship to customize its product and enable more personalization, which will engage fans in a “much more effective way,” he said.
Mr. Iger cautioned that such an offering is not “right around the corner”; even five years down the line, he believes there won’t have been “significant change” in the pay TV business.
LikeLike
The thing is that ESPN is crap.
I’d have kept SlingTV if they had the BigTen network or Fox Sports Detroit. I don’t want or need TMZ: Sports Edition.
LikeLike
It is, but they have more major live sports than anyone. That’s what makes them valuable. Many people only watch games on ESPN because their programming is so obnoxious.
LikeLike
OBannon ruling stayed.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25255702/inside-college-sports-jim-delany-cautions-patience-on-obannon-payments
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1566130.html
The 10 best games of Week 1:
1. Sept. 5, 8:00 PM Wisconsin vs. Alabama (in Arlington) ABC
2. Sept. 5, 7:30 PM Texas at Notre Dame NBC
3. Sept. 5, 7:00 PM Arizona State vs. Texas A&M (in Houston) ESPN
4. Sept. 5, 3:30 PM Louisville vs. Auburn (in Atlanta) CBS
5. Sept. 3, 8:30 PM Michigan at Utah FOX Sports 1
6. Sept, 3, 6:00 PM North Carolina vs. South Carolina (in Charlotte) ESPN
7. Sept. 3, 9:00 PM TCU at Minnesota ESPN
8. Sept. 7, 8:00 PM Ohio State at Virginia Tech ESPN
9. Sept. 4, 10:15 PM Washington at Boise State ESPN
10. Sept. 5, 3:30 PM Virginia at UCLA FOX
ESPN – 5
ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, FS1 – 1 each
ACC, B10, P12, SEC – 4
B12, Other – 2
Good diversity.
LikeLike
Pingback: August 2nd Roll Out: Cincinnati Bearcats News And Links
In one of the articles, there was a letter from a B10 professor. He mentioned that the B10 cared about the NRC rankings of graduate programs.
Those rankings only come out about once per decade. The most recent report was in 2010. Before that it was 1995. The 2010 report looked at 5004 graduate programs, with each field (like ME, EE, etc) ranked separately. They also switched to providing ranges (5th and 95th percentile) rather than individual scores, and using 2 types of rankings (regression based and survey based).
You can read about the new version (and download an Excel file of all the data) here:
http://sites.nationalacademies.org/pga/Resdoc/
You can also get the program rankings for individual fields at at http://www.phds.org/
For a look at the 1995 rankings, here’s a good summary:
http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc1.html
He only looks at the 136 biggest schools (those with at least 10 rated PhD programs) of 247, but it’s still useful. He provides a table of the top 60 schools by 3 different measures – Number of Rated Programs, Average of Nonzero Scores and Average of all 41 Scores. He also provides rankings based on the 5 major areas (Arts & Humanities, Engineering, Biological Sciences, Math & Physical Science, Social & Behavioral Sciences).
I haven’t seen anybody do a similar breakdown of the 2010 report.
LikeLike
Here’s a post for fellow fans of sporting legends:
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/karelin.html
What’s my point here (as 12-year card-carrying Juventino)?
“Vincere Non e Importante, E’ L’unica Cosa Che Conta”
It’s all about the W’s.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/08/03/college-sports-consumers-espn-punt-pass-pork
LikeLike
The Big Ten should look at adding Kansas & Missouri while the SEC can add Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech or Texas. If Notre Dame & Texas join the ACC as full members then the Longhorn Network can be rebranded as the ACC Network.
LikeLike
There is practically no chance Missouri would leave the SEC, and there is practically no chance that the SEC wants Oklahoma State or Texas Tech. Why would they?
Notre Dame is going to remain independent, as long as they have the same access to the post-season that they do now. None of the folks in power have given any hint that that’ll change. It’s only coaches who’ve said that, and coaches don’t make the decisions.
LikeLike
I think the better way to classify Notre Dame in terms of football is as a semi-independent or a quasi-independent. Having the contract with the ACC to play five games per year would be enough in itself to remove the title of “independent”. Add in the rivalry games with USC and Navy along with one other West Coast team, i.e., Stanford, and ND essentially has a de facto conference schedule in place each season. Jack Swarbrick is then tasked with scheduling four games per season–much like any other AD in a conference.
Brigham Young, OTOH, can probably truly called an independent in terms of how its football schedule is put together each year.
LikeLike
Oklahoma’s not going anywhere without Oklahoma State, which pretty much means they’re going nowhere. It’s not worth it to any of the other power conferences to take two teams from Oklahoma because it’s a money losing proposition. The last time I checked, T. Boone Pickens still has the ability to prevent Oklahoma from leaving Oklahoma State behind. Oklahoma lost this battle in the last round of expansion, why would this be any different? So this is all fantasy talk.
LikeLike
It’s not worth it to any of the other power conferences to take two teams from Oklahoma because it’s a money losing proposition.
I think you’ve misstated what happened. The Pac-10 (as it then was) absolutely thought OK+OkSt was a winner, as long as Texas and TT came along. Texas scuttled the transaction when they insisted on keeping the Longhorn Network separate from any other Pac media deal.
I agree that no other conference would take the two Oklahoma schools, but the Pac would probably make the same offer again, if at some point the LHN issue can be solved. That’s probably not happening anytime soon, but I wouldn’t say “never”. If the Pac ever wants to expand again, there aren’t many other realistic options, so I wouldn’t be surprise to see the idea resurrected at some point.
Even assuming that T. Boone Pickens is calling the shots in the state of Oklahoma, he’s not a young man, and he won’t be around forever.
LikeLike
Right – I don’t think the Pac-12 would have any issue at all if the price to get both Texas and Oklahoma is to take along Texas Tech and Oklahoma State. Their main issue was with taking Oklahoma and Oklahoma State *alone* as a 2-school expansion. That is what has been rejected by the Pac-12 (and would certainly be rejected by the Big Ten and SEC).
LikeLike
I don’t understand why some people on this board sneer at the University of Oklahoma. Where I come from kids are fortunate if they get a degree from the local community college. My father quit school when he was 14 to work the family farm, and the only organized sports that I played was 4H bowling. The Sooners are A-OK in my book!
LikeLike
Chet,
“I don’t understand why some people on this board sneer at the University of Oklahoma.”
We don’t sneer at them so much as note that the B10 presidents might sneer at adding them. OU is in the top 100 to 150 schools in the US (all rankings are different). That’s not bad at all. But the B10 consists of mostly top 60ish schools with NE bringing up the rear by a sizable margin. In addition, AAU membership is an important distinction to B10 presidents and OU is far from getting it.
“Where I come from kids are fortunate if they get a degree from the local community college. My father quit school when he was 14 to work the family farm, and the only organized sports that I played was 4H bowling. The Sooners are A-OK in my book!”
You aren’t the president of a B10 school. Even they wouldn’t say OU is a bad school, they’d just say it isn’t a great fit for the B10 academically.
LikeLike
Agree. When it comes to any further Big Ten expansion, there will be only 16 opinions that count.
LikeLike
Who are 15 and 16?
LikeLike
Well Franks gotta be 15. 🙂
LikeLike
Chicago and Johns Hopkins.
LikeLike
@ccrider
If I was to answer that question with a joke, then you know what the answer would be.
But I’ll be frank with you (no pun intended). I personally think that Big Ten expansion is over.
But that is not the answer you are seeking. To answer that question, I must first give these opinions: (a) “politics” is over-stated; while (b) “shared-board” is under-stated.
(a) If one school would leave behind its brother school, and they don’t share the same board, then what’s the worst thing that politicians can do? Cut-off state funding?? In that case, the politicians would be saying that athletics is more important than academics. Not going to happen.
(b) However, politics is much more important, if two schools share the same board. What happens if one school wants to prevent the other school from leaving? Does the board sue itself??
For the above reasons, if I was a poor gambling man, my bet for School No. 1 and School No. 2 would be Virginia and Duke.
However, if I was a rich gambling man, then I would also consider the odds of the bet, because if a long-shot bet would win, then I would have the chance to become richer.
LikeLike
” If one school would leave behind its brother school, and they don’t share the same board, then what’s the worst thing that politicians can do?”
Force Texas A&M to abandon plans to join the SEC, because Big Eight schools would only accept Texas Tech and Baylor if Texas and A&M joined as well.
LikeLike
Chet:
I simply wondered who were the 15th, and 16th opinions that matter.
“But that is not the answer you are seeking.”
The answer is there are 14 opinions that count.
As to my opinion about prospective invites, if they actually happen, I agree that it will be in the populous central Atlantic region. UVA is one attractive school but I don’t see a small private being its partner unless and until UNC shows in some way it will never join (i.e. joins the SEC). And even then I’d bet on another large public school, although Duke’s research is very attractive and it wouldn’t be an enormous surprise if I was wrong (again).
LikeLike
That would be the answer if School No. 1 and School No. 2 would be Maryland and Rutgers.
LikeLike
First of all, I think the Grant of Rights is more than enough to keep everybody locked in at least until the final years that it’s in effect (2021-22 at the earliest before real noise begins to be made); I just don’t see anybody wanting to go “nuclear” and deal with the legal challenges just to get away from Texas. A lot of people here just seem to assume that it’s a fig leaf, but if one GoR gets successfully challenged, then everybody’s GoRs are suddenly compromised. Granted, the Big 12 seems to be the only conference anybody wants to bail on, but what happens if their GoR is broken and then perhaps the Big 10 starts eyeballing an ACC school or vice-versa once the cat’s out of the bag? I think the status quo is a lot more set than people are giving it credit for.
And everybody assumes that the OUs and KUs of the world would have free reign to ditch their respective State schools to go elsewhere, but I think the political pressure to keep them together would be a lot greater than you might expect. Even Texas would have to take at least Tech along if they left. Not necessarily enough pressure to make it impossible, but it would be just as messy in its own right as breaking the GoR, especially if you have prominent KSU and OSU grads in their respective state legislatures at the time a move is made (and Kansas’ governor, as despised as he may be, is a KSU grad). True, if it came down to it, and it was clear taking their State school along was not an option and the only way to keep your University Of in a Power conference was to let them go, yeah, sure, it would happen (probably with a caveat to require them to continue playing their State schools regardless), but not before a fight to keep them together. Remember, Colorado, Nebraska, and Missouri had no in-conference in-state rivals to disengage from when they left, and Texas A&M was not the University Of in their state. But Oklahoma and Kansas would be the first ones with in-conference in-state rivals to try to leave. Again, it’s possible, but it wouldn’t be easy.
Finally, I agree with Frank’s previous posts on Texas’ preferences: they like controlling a conference, and they’ll never get a better deal than the Big 12. Sure, they’d like to jump to another conference with Notre Dame, or better yet bring ND to the Big 12, but it’s not happening. And really, if I’m the Big 10 or the SEC, do I really NEED Texas? I mean, those conferences are obviously thriving without them, so why would you want to put up with Texas? We in the Big 12 do because we don’t have a choice (heh), but there’s no way you could expect Texas to be content with going from being the top dog in the Big 12 to “merely” one of four or five premiere schools in the SEC. I just don’t think the SEC would want to deal with Texas when they don’t have to. Texas is like the hottest chick in school who’s also the bitchiest and most entitled, expecting five star restaurants every night; there are plenty of other pretty girls around who are nicer and may even cook you dinner instead. Even the Pac-12 seems to be happy with not having Texas in their conference, and that was the best option that Texas was going to get.
LikeLike
The main distinction is whether “putting up with Texas” (or, for that matter, Notre Dame”) means that they are structurally treated differently than the other members. If a school like Texas or Notre Dame is willing to be a full and equal revenue sharing member of the Big Ten or SEC, then those conferences won’t care if they’re the whiniest entitled brats in all of college sports. *Every* conference will take Texas or Notre Dame as full and equal members. No questions asked. The issue is where they don’t want to be full and equal members, whether it’s in the form of a separate TV deal or different revenue treatment. That’s where leagues like the Big Ten and SEC completely draw the line.
To be sure, I thought that the original Pac-16 deal was *fantastic* for Texas (and I say that as someone that badly wanted Texas to join the Big Ten). There are still days where I can’t believe that Texas didn’t follow through with it. Texas A&M would have still been under their wing and they would have had a full division of regional opponents combined with the great demographics and TV markets of the West Coast plus a significant academic prestige upgrade. Every other proposal from another conference is going to look weaker by comparison (if only because A&M is now off in the SEC forever).
LikeLike
1. A&M wasn’t going. It would have been Kansas instead. A&M would have gone to the SEC a year earlier.
2. Texas ended up with the basically the same money for Tier I and Tier II. Pac 10 averages $21 million vs. $20 million for Big 12, but is more backloaded. Big 12 is earning more in the early years. And with the LHN, Texas is making more overall.
3. Texas has a similar schedule without all the trouble of switching conferences. They were going to minimize cross-division scheduling to reduce travel, so they wouldn’t be playing the Pac 8 schools much. Instead, they have USC, Cal and UCLA out of conference without having Oregon St. and Washington St. on the schedule.
4. Noone watches the Pac 12. They trail the P5. The time differential is an issue. Plus, they just aren’t into sports like the Big 12, Big 10 and SEC.
5. When they did travel, it would be pretty long. All the original Big 10 schools are closer than any of the Pac 10 schools to Austin and Penn St. is closer than any but the Arizona schools.
The Big 12 is just a much better fit as long as it stays economically viable. Which it definitely is for the next 10 years. Texas will never join the SEC as long as there is a viable option, but that is the one that fits the best “regionally” with Arkansas, A&M and LSU.
I do think because of the “Tech” problem, if the Big 12 ceases to be viable, Texas, Tech, OU and Okie St. head to the Pac. Despite all the talk now, I think OU sees a lot of benefit in being in the same conference with Texas. They were separate for decades in the Big 8 and did very well, but they did better together.
LikeLike
#2
Not the same money they would have made if a P16 deal had been what Larry Scott had been taking to the market.
LikeLike
That’s your assumption. That isn’t the belief that Texas President Powers had. He thought it would be similar. There doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of difference between the valuations of the major conferences.
LikeLike
“That’s your assumption.”
Well, yes. But it is informed by Belevaqua, who just after the 3B deal was signed indicated the P16 deal might have been 5B.
3B/12/12=20.83M
5B/16/12=26.04M
That’s aproximately a 25% increase (in a 2011 deal). Plus the added value to the P12N.
UT alone might not have seen a big difference, but the other three certainly would have. Perhaps they don’t care. Now Memphis, Tulane, UConn, etc are possibllities as conference mates? But you’re right, it’s still an assumption.
LikeLike
“I do think because of the “Tech” problem, if the Big 12 ceases to be viable, Texas, Tech, OU and Okie St. head to the Pac.”
This has been my assumption, too.
“Despite all the talk now, I think OU sees a lot of benefit in being in the same conference with Texas.”
Because that is the current circumstance.”
They were separate for decades in the Big 8 and did very well, but they did better together.”
But the conference didn’t survive at the same level.
LikeLike
We don’t actually know if the concept of a Pac-16 was real in the Pac-10 officials minds. There were reports that the Pac officials were appalled by the attitude of Boren and Dobbs in particular who behaved as if it was Texas and Oklahoma inviting the Pac to join them and that they’d bring their friend Tech and OK State with them.
The impression I get is the Pac-12 was looking at Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas only. Utah was going to be brought in as the round out for an even number if they only got Colorado or they got all three. The Pac-12 was not willing to take the academic hit of Tech and Oklahoma State.
This may explain Texas’ hesitation, since they were looking at a Pac-12 where they were in instead of Utah and had to make long treks to the West coast. The Pac-16 may have been Texas’ counter plan to make it palpable to them. And as you say, limit travel by playing in essentially the same conference, just with the Arizona schools instead of the Kansas schools.
This would also explain why Texas A&M would work with Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma (again) and Iowa State to try and group join the B1G. This would indicate A&M, like Missouri in its open courting of the B1G, had already broken ranks with Austin. They simply held their cards closer and then approached the SEC, after sending hints through back channels. Missouri had already ticked off everyone and knew they needed to go, so were ripe for the plucking, although it took considerable internal politicking to get backers and faculty who had their hearts set on the B1G for decades to switch focus to the South.
Oklahoma’s latest maneuvering is simply a continuation of what was set in motion five years ago. Kansas gets to play the Missouri role this time. Bottom line, its about getting out of the Big XII.
Texas is sitting pretty with the LHN bringing them $15m a year for 2nd/3rd tier programming. Add that to the almost $20m the conference TV deal brings each school, and its pretty clear Texas is not disadvantaged in terms of revenue compared with the B1G or the SEC. They don’t need to go anywhere anytime soon. The LHN deal pays them regardless, and it runs through 2030-31. We should probably recognize that Texas is not likely going anywhere until the middle of the next decade.
LikeLike
We do know the Pac 16 was real. They had gone as far as to figure out how scheduling would work in the various sports. Scott was flying around to the various cities and the boards of Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas Tech, Colorado and Texas were all scheduled to meet within 24 hours of each other to approve the Presidents authority to negotiate the deal. Scott was flying to Lawrence after A&M indicated they didn’t want to go.
Once the boards meet, the deal is done and the rest is just the attorneys dotting the Is and crossing the Ts.
LikeLike
As for the little brothers, that was no surprise to the Pac. The “Tech” problem had been discussed with the Pac as far back as 1993. They fully understood that, politically, Texas had to take care of Tech.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/25259226/report-nhl-partners-with-mlb-on-digital-media-deal-valued-at-12b
The NHL is partnering with MLB for digital media.
The NHL and Major League Baseball are expected to deliver a joint announcement Tuesday of a “groundbreaking new partnership” between the two leagues. According to Sports Business Journal, the partnership involves MLB Advanced Media taking over the NHL’s digital operations, including the league’s and member clubs’ websites, live streaming, mobile applications and NHL Network. The NHL signed a six-year partnership with MLBAM on this new endeavor.
So what does this mean for NHL fans?
The general consensus is that MLBAM’s involvement is only a good thing, so here’s three ways this new partnership could benefit NHL fans.
1. $$$$$$ – According to SBJ, the NHL is getting $100 million per year in rights fees, plus 7-10 percent equity in MLBAM. The entire deal is valued at $1.2 billion.
…
2. GameCenter Live – With MLBAM taking over the NHL’s live streaming rights, this could be very good news for those growing frustrated with the current GameCenter Live. Though improvements have been made over the years, long delays and other general clunkiness has frustrated users.
…
This is unlikely to change anything in regards to regional blackouts, however, which is probably what you really want to know if you’re a paying customer for live streaming.
3. NHL Network – If you’re an avid consumer of the NHL and your cable or dish provider has NHL Network, you’re probably a subscriber. You’re also probably not all that thrilled with being one. With a dearth of original programming, besides a daily afternoon talk show and a nightly highlights program, there’s just not a whole lot to actually consume.
…
According to SBJ, MLBAM will be moving NHL Network’s U.S. operations from Toronto to the Secaucus, N.J., studio that houses MLB Network. That alone should provide a boost in quality to the product and help better engage fans. A more robust offering of original content would have to follow to make it worth it, but NHL fans should be excited about the change coming.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13377734/college-football-playoff-increases-travel-stipend-families-participating-players
The CFP expands the family travel stipend to include the semifinals, too. It’s $2500 per player for up to 100 players per team.
LikeLike
I still think the Longhorns could thrive on their own. Article below makes a compelling case. OU & KU would probably be gone also, but so would any resistance to B12 expansion with Cinci, BYU, CFU, Houston, etc. The B12 could retain the Longhorn’s other sports along with a partial football schedule.
Sure, Texas is every conference’s number one fantasy expansion candidate, but if I’m running things in Austin, I have to think that ND, BYU and Army aren’t the only programs that can pull off independence. They’ve already got the LHN, what are they waiting for?
LikeLike
“Sure, Texas is every conference’s number one fantasy expansion candidate…”
Number two…
LikeLike
ND would be two. Many would put ND at one, but being the flagship university of the state of Texas has to give it the edge. The Longhorns check off a lot of boxes for every conference — AAU, recruiting exposure in TX, visits to Austin, etc. If all the P5 conferences disbanded tomorrow and each commissioner was allowed to pick new universities for their conference, the Texas Longhorns would be everyone’s first choice.
LikeLike
chickenbox,
“I still think the Longhorns could thrive on their own.”
Maybe with a ND-type deal. As a pure independent scheduling in all sports gets too difficult.
“Article below makes a compelling case.”
Compelling for UT, maybe. His case for the B12 is much weaker:
I’ll leave the particulars to those smarter than me, but it should be safe to assume that there are more than a handful of universities whose entrance would make the Big XII intriguing, national, and most importantly, viable.
If those schools existed, the B12 would be back to 12 already.
“OU & KU would probably be gone also, but so would any resistance to B12 expansion with Cinci, BYU, CFU, Houston, etc.”
Of course there’d be no resistance. The remaining B12 schools would be on par with the best MWC and AAC schools.
“The B12 could retain the Longhorn’s other sports along with a partial football schedule.”
How generous of UT. Maybe the B12 decides to protest UT leaving by not giving them that deal for a few years. Let UT look elsewhere for games for a while until they appreciate the B12 schools a little.
LikeLike
“How generous of UT. Maybe the B12 decides to protest UT leaving by not giving them that deal for a few years. Let UT look elsewhere for games for a while until they appreciate the B12 schools a little.”
In reality, it’s just a perception issue that can easily be overcome by performance on the field. The Longhorns would be dropping 3 (or at most 4) B12 games from the schedule they have now. If it’s only 3 games, they’ll be rotating through the B12 more frequently than ND rotates through the ACC. It may feel like the B12 is going the way of the old Big East (or current AAC), but it in reality the new B12 would be a far superior conference than the old Big East ever hoped to be. Also, if OU left and continued the RRR with UT, that’s now a non-conf game and thus not part of the 6 game B12 rotation.
If the B12 let UT go indy now, they can dictate terms (6 games) and allow UT to be part of a more regional conference which it would prefer over the ACC — which is the conference that is at least going to offer them an ND-equivalent deal.
LikeLike
Brian, Texas thought their school could carry a TV network by themselves too. But the red ink on the LHN for ESPN speaks volumes about the Longhorns ability to sustain all by their lonesome. And their overall TV ratings are declining yearly.
LikeLike
swesleyh,
I’m not sure where I said something relevant to that in the comment you’re replying to, but okay.
“Brian, Texas thought their school could carry a TV network by themselves too.”
And they can. It may not be the most exciting network, but they can do it.
“But the red ink on the LHN for ESPN speaks volumes about the Longhorns ability to sustain all by their lonesome.”
No, it just shows how much ESPN overpaid for LHN. There’s a huge difference. A slightly profitable single school channel is probably less valuable than an equal share of a conference channel even for UT. Few schools could turn down the offer UT got from ESPN, though. I believe UT would’ve accepted a lot less guaranteed money just for the exposure in state.
“And their overall TV ratings are declining yearly.”
They haven’t won 10 games since 2009 (did it every year from 2001-2009). When they start winning again, the ratings will skyrocket.
LikeLike
I think this is as likely a scenario as any. Texas goes independent, OU and Kansas go to B1G. I don’t believe OU would go west without Texas and the academic association with/benefits of the B1G are too powerful to turn down.
LikeLike
NHL signs six-year, $600 million deal with MLB to have MLB take over the NHL’s tv broadcasting and Internet streaming options. In return, the NHL will receive a 7 to 10% stake in MLB Advanced Media. MLBAM also handles HBO Now, WWE Network, Sony’s PlayStation Vue Internet TV service, PGA, CBS’s on-demand March Madness coverage and WatchESPN besides all the stuff they do with MLB baseball games.
MLB has created quite the media company here.
http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/nhl-mlb-advanced-media-deal-1201556128/
LikeLike
Another article on the history of MLB Advanced Media
http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/4/9090897/mlb-bam-live-streaming-internet-tv-nhl-hbo-now-espn
LikeLike
Nebraska is going the “moneyball” route to try to help win games by hiring a full time statistical analyst
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25260417/can-nebraska-reverse-fortunes-by-hiring-an-advanced-stats-whiz
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25260483/sec-big-ten-coaches-weigh-in-pros-cons-of-advanced-stats
Some B10 and SEC coaches talk about what advanced stats they use now.
LikeLike
The Wall Street Journal (pay wall) article on the slow motion collapse of ESPN (and bundling in general) has to have Delaney thinking creatively about now. Disney is now concerned that a cord cutting ‘Black Tuesday’ situation could outpace their contingency plans (streaming etc.). Be interesting to see this play out.
LikeLike
A key point in that article is in the last paragraph. Basically media companies that create the best content will remain “providers of a scarce resource” and will always be able to maintain their value. Content is king and we are just going through a transition of distribution methods.
I don’t see myself ever cutting the cord. It’s much simpler for me to go through cable instead of buying all these other systems to work through internet and digital antennas.
Since most high speed internet providers also distribute TV/Video packages I can see a day where the cost of stand alone internet is so expensive that adding the video package makes more economic sense versus a standalone internet package and direct purchase of content.
Essentially I think there is limit on the growth rate of cord cutters. How many man caves don’t have cable or satellite? Personally I don’t think it’s the cost of video packages that are driving the cord cutting but rather all the new costs such as high speed internet, smart phones etc… where these costs were non-existent for many people 7 to 10 years ago.
LikeLike
True.
LikeLike
When competition comes to high-speed internet (e.g. – Google Fiber, municipal broadband), you will be stupid to mindlessly stay with cable. The cable guys will no longer be able to gouge you if you don’t bundle. . . and yes, the video packages are driving the costs increases because the content owners keep raising the prices they charge to the cable guys. The cord-cutters pay more for internet without video, as you say, so unless they are stupid, the cord cutters’ do better without the video package.
I stay with cable for now because I can get their “triple play” (including HBO and Showtime and 100 Mbps download speed) with 2 HD rooms (one with DVR) and one non-HD for $164/mo. – including all the BS fees and taxes. But to get that rate, I have to credibly threaten to leave every 2 years.
In San Francisco, one can get DirecTV (3BRs – all HD), DSL up to 40 Mbps download speed, and full phone service for $125/mo – including all the BS fees and taxes. But, you have to do research and shop around. The cord-cutter in SF who can live w/ 40 Mbps can get by paying just $60/mo. before shopping for TV content.
LikeLike
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/08/doug-flutie-to-replace-mike-mayock-on-nbcs-notre-dame-broadcasts
Doug Flutie will replace Mike Mayock on NBC’s ND game coverage.
LikeLike
@Brian – A BC legend calling Notre Dame games! The Cubs would make the playoffs if the season ended today! Dogs and cats living together! It’s anarchy!
LikeLike
At least that BC alum doesnt talk funny. Id pay money to hear washout Chris Herren (Fah Rivah) call b-ball.
LikeLike
Well, he does resemble a leprechaun in some respects.
LikeLike
No worse than having a USC legend pat Hayden calling games. That was the worst.
LikeLike
We’re #1! We’re #1!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-princeton-review-illinois-top-party-school-20150803-story.html
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13383524/baylor-bears-ad-ian-mccaw-predicts-college-football-playoff-expansion
Baylor’s AD predicts that the CFP will expand to 8 in the next 5 years. Nice to see the grapes are still sour in Waco.
LikeLike
http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/05/media/media-stock-selloff-netflix-high/
Media stocks got hammered yesterday over fears of cord cutting.
Discovery -12.1%
Disney -9.2%
Time Warner -8.5%
Viacom -7.5%
LikeLike
This is no joke. My ex-wife has gone from DISH to U-verse to Xfinity to a HD terrestrial antenna in the span of about 14 months, early termination fees for the 2nd and 3rd in that sequence be damned. I’ll probably ride out my U-verse service until mid-2016 when the 2 year term is up and then probably get the scissors and rely on high-speed internet with a few streaming options.
LikeLike
How much are you paying for high speed internet? What did it cost five years ago? Projection into the future?
LikeLike
That’s the point I was trying to make. Those that want to stream TV will end up paying through the nose for that connection. Net neutrality laws are being litigated so there is long term economic risk for those that want or will need super high speed connection.
In addition, the current technology (ie Sling TV) doesn’t allow for you to stream more than one program at a time. Very limiting with multiple TV’s per household.
I could see a scenario where this cord cutting risk will place an even bigger premium on sports properties as its the programming that is preventing more rapid growth in cord cutting. As long as ESPN etc.. has content people want to watch their long-term viability will remain strong.
Conference sports networks will always struggle with annual content so you could see that moving to a pay per view type model unless they are bundled with a national network like ESPN or Fox Sports etc..
LikeLike
Interesting thought about the pipe being the great expense. This may occur, although it could be avoided if municipalities begin to regulate the pipe providers as monopolies (or duopolies). The other option would be for the municipalities to take over the service altogether or roll out wi-max infrastructure or some future variant. The point being that the physical and philosophical internet pipe of today is unlikely to be the same tomorrow and I find it unlikely that municipalities who are in competition with other municipalities will allow a key portion of their infrastructure to price consumers out of the market. The internet pipe will be as significant as roads and bridges and any municipality that allows extreme pricing will be placing themselves at a significant development disadvantage relative to other communities.
I agree about the cost of content to consumers. Most consumers will likely pay as much or potentially more for content when they go directly to the providers, each charging $9.99 – $29.99 per month. Although, I suspect that paradigm will shift back into a bundling paradigm sans the cable companies as it is more cost efficient for consumers. Either way, this is likely to spell bad news for conference networks whose revenues are based upon forcing subscribers to pay for the content whether they watch it or not.
LikeLike
I agree. What has been missing is a form of a la carte to juxtapose with the potential saving particular bundles would provide.
“Conference sports networks will always struggle with annual content…”
Only if they continue to sell all their premium content in a tier 1&2 package.
“…so you could see that moving to a pay per view type model…”
Highly doubtful. PPV usually requires a truly attractive event to generate significant viewership. Otherwise it only attract the hardcore follower and fans.
“…unless they are bundled with a national network like ESPN or Fox Sports etc..”
SECN and LHN are already ESPN owned. If an ACCN happens it will likely be also. BTN and P12N are the ones that will be advantaged, or constrained, by having options and flexibility was the mode of delivering live sports programming evolves.
LikeLike
The effective transmission range for HD TV seems to be about 35 miles. I live 40 miles from a major city and cannot receive any HD transmissions. Before the transition, we could receive the Std Def transmissions.
We are also in a rural setting, so there is no cable, and none coming. Our only connections are via telephone DSL and satellite (DirectV). That restricts the range of options open to us.
LikeLike
You should lobby your town to build out a municipally-owned fiber broadband network.
LikeLike
The town I use to live in (had a D1 university) started to install city wide wifi. They stopped because they wern’t “supposed” to be in competition with private enterprises that they tax. Competing with government might cause large providers to abandon whole markets if it won’t be profitable enough.
LikeLike
Let’s say OU and KU jump to the B1G. This seemingly puts pressure on two big players – the Pac-12 and the University of Texas.
Texas effectively loses its biggest rival in football and top competitor in basketball. Maybe they don’t care, as it seems Texas likes to act as the big man on the block with the rest of the conference being the minions. But this would be a crippling blow to the Big XII and maybe makes Texas look long and hard at the future of college athletics and where it will fit in.
The Pac-12 will see its expansion options dwindling. It can really only move east, and with very few desirable options along the Rockies (BYU being maybe the only 1 desirable option), picking up Big XII schools are the most logical additions. And with the B1G getting bigger, the SEC in the Big XII neighborhood, and a further destabilized Big XII, I would think the Pac-12 would feel a lot of pressure to add schools quickly.
Admittedly, I see conferences moving beyond 16 to 20 and forming more of a league type set up. As football would feel the biggest pinch sports-wise, I have a hard time seeing some conferences, especially the B1G wanting to go bigger than that, but it could happen. At 20 teams, the conference could go to 10 games, use a pod system of 5 teams in 4 pods, have 1 or 2 dedicated cross over games, and still be able to rotate through the rest of the league playing each school at least once every 4 years – so let’s assume conferences are shooting for either 16 (which is a nice even number for divisions) or 20 in order to keep up with the Joneses.
The Pac-12 would be looking for 4 or 8 schools. Texas is the most desirable school, by far in the Big XII. Do you think the Pac-12 then bends over backward to add them? I would think Texas would be willing to go, if the price was right. Part of that price could be adding schools close to Texas (TTU, Baylor, TCE, Okie St., etc.) or giving Texas some autonomy (ie keeping the LHN, a conference office in Austin, etc.). Or maybe something else…
If going to 16, I would see the Pac-12 looking at the 4 Texas schools. This would lock down most of the state of Texas for the Pac-12 network/TV viewership plus add a huge recruiting state. Pac-12 football with both California and Texas heavily in its footprint? That’s a ridiculous amount of talent. The Pac-12 could move to an east and west division set up (CU, Utah, and the Arizona schools with the Texas schools) and own pretty much all of the western US.This probably blows up most of the Big XII (and the SEC might look at adding 2 schools to keep up at 16 as well – WVU and Okie St? An ACC school or two?).
But what about a push to 20? This would be a nuclear option. the Pac-12 could look at adding the remaining 8 teams from the Big XII (or maybe add BYU and not WVU) and sit at the east (8 + CU and Utah) and west (Pac-10 schools). This would throw conferences into mayhem probably resulting in 3 large (20+) conferences as the SEC and B1G most likely do not sit around and start hammering away at the ACC. Litigation and politics galore, but ultimately a Pac-12 (or 20) in the west, a B1G in the north and east and the SEC in the south and east.
I see this as the ultimate end game. Forget rivalries and geography. If we’ve learned anything from the NFL, MLB, NHL, and NBA – there is tons of money to be made with your own network and a huge fan base even if the number of spectators showing up to the live games dwindles. And what is the US if not full of greedy capitalists?
LikeLike
If the SEC feels the pressure to go to 16, they go for either of UNC-Duke or FSU-Miami (why not lock up Florida the same way a Pac-16 locks up Texas and Cali)? That would consign OkSt to the G5 (unless it fills one of the 3 vacancies in the ACC-12+ND).
LikeLike
A 4pac of Texas to the Pac will never happen.
LikeLike
Patrick,
“Let’s say OU and KU jump to the B1G. This seemingly puts pressure on two big players – the Pac-12 and the University of Texas.”
Okay.
“Texas effectively loses its biggest rival in football and top competitor in basketball.”
The RRR was played OOC for almost it’s entire history. Why couldn’t that be true again? And hoops OOC is even easier.
“But this would be a crippling blow to the Big XII and maybe makes Texas look long and hard at the future of college athletics and where it will fit in.”
Yep.
“The Pac-12 will see its expansion options dwindling. It can really only move east, and with very few desirable options along the Rockies (BYU being maybe the only 1 desirable option), picking up Big XII schools are the most logical additions.”
But are they logical? It only makes sense if the value added ($$$) is greater than the costs (diluted rivalries, longer travel, etc). Obviously UT makes sense, and TT is a reasonable price to pay to get them. But the others? What value does ISU or KSU bring? Even OkSU doesn’t bring much but a shorter trip for UT. And with UT on board, Baylor and TCU also add nothing but local games for UT. How many dead weight schools can you add and still have UT be worth it?
“And with the B1G getting bigger, the SEC in the Big XII neighborhood, and a further destabilized Big XII, I would think the Pac-12 would feel a lot of pressure to add schools quickly.”
Why? They are a P5 conference as is and are virtually unassailable based on geography. If they stick at 12, they’ll never lose their status.
“Admittedly, I see conferences moving beyond 16 to 20 and forming more of a league type set up.”
Anything’s possible.
“At 20 teams, the conference could go to 10 games, use a pod system of 5 teams in 4 pods, have 1 or 2 dedicated cross over games, and still be able to rotate through the rest of the league playing each school at least once every 4 years”
1. They could go to 10 games now, but several are resisting going to even 9. 10 games means either dropping major OOC games or only having 6 home games. Neither is palatable to many/most P5 schools.
2. Not all conferences break into neat groups of 5. Conferences may find divisions a better solution, or even acting as 1 big group with multiple locked rivals.
20 schools:
1 conference
9 games = 4 locked + 15 * 33%
10 games = 4 locked + 15 * 40%
2 divisions
9 games = 8 locked + 10 * 10%
10 games = 8 locked + 10 * 20%
4 pods
9 games = 4 locked + 15 * 33%
10 games = 4 locked + 15 * 40%
Pods are the same as being one conference, but more restrictive in terms of locked games.
“so let’s assume conferences are shooting for either 16 (which is a nice even number for divisions) or 20 in order to keep up with the Joneses.”
Why aim for a number? 15, 17, 18 and 19 can all work, too. Conferences will add schools as long as the benefits for both sides justify it.
“Texas is the most desirable school, by far in the Big XII. Do you think the Pac-12 then bends over backward to add them?”
No.
“I would think Texas would be willing to go, if the price was right. Part of that price could be adding schools close to Texas (TTU, Baylor, TCE, Okie St., etc.) or giving Texas some autonomy (ie keeping the LHN, a conference office in Austin, etc.). Or maybe something else…”
The P12 would say no to those prices.
“If going to 16, I would see the Pac-12 looking at the 4 Texas schools.”
Not going to happen. Baylor and TCU don’t add anything. TT is a reasonable (and perhaps necessary) price to pay.
LikeLike
Pac-12 doesn’t ever HAVE to expand. It will always be a power conference with a bid to the playoff. Moreover, not only is BYU in its neighborhood, but so is the fast-growing state of Nevada. It is conceivable that University of Nevada (UNLV less likely) will be an attractive candidate within the next 10-20 years. New Mexico is also in the “hood”, but it may never be viable for the Pac. I agree that UT/TTech/OU/Ok St. would be good for the Pac, but it is not critical.
LikeLike
A few years ago I’d have disputed any Nevada add possibility (the gambling specter), but the Pac moved the conference basketball tournament to LV, and I’ve heard it’s been a big success so far. Now I’d say still unlikely, but not impossible long term. UNLV is building a new FB stadium so maybe they have hopes.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/13383321/las-vegas-quebec-city-nhl-expansion-bids-advance-phase-2
The NHL is about to expand to LV, which would help remove the taint, I think.
Foley said Phase 2 will feature bidders’ providing the NHL additional information regarding their respective markets and arena plans. The bidders will also gain access to certain league-related information.
The Las Vegas group has already secured more than 13,200 season-ticket deposits for a potential team. And there’s a multipurpose arena under construction near the Las Vegas Strip set to open next spring.
…
The NHL isn’t expected to expand until 2017 at the earliest. Commissioner Gary Bettman has proposed an expansion fee of $500 million. That’s a significant jump from the $80 million fee paid by the Columbus Blue Jackets and Minnesota Wild, when the NHL last expanded to 30 teams in 2000.
Out of 16 expansion applications, Las Vegas’ and Quebec City’s were the only ones accepted by the NHL last month.
LikeLike
“The NHL is about to expand to LV, which would help remove the taint, I think.”
I don’t think it removes it. It merely means the first major professional league is willing to have a franchise in very close proximity to the iconic capital of U.S. gambling. It may indicate an acceptance of the ubiquity of gambling nationwide provided by spreading casinos, state lotterys, and Internet sights. Perhaps the NBA, and others are coming to the same level of acceptance (of the taint).
LikeLike
Accepted taint is removed taint to me.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“Pac-12 doesn’t ever HAVE to expand. It will always be a power conference with a bid to the playoff.”
Exactly. It’s very hard to imagine the P12 ever being raided just based on geography. Only the B12 is in a location to do it, but they don’t have the strength as a conference (CO just went the other way).
“Moreover, not only is BYU in its neighborhood, but so is the fast-growing state of Nevada. It is conceivable that University of Nevada (UNLV less likely) will be an attractive candidate within the next 10-20 years. New Mexico is also in the “hood”, but it may never be viable for the Pac.”
Yes, there are several potential partial or full member candidates for the future – Boise, CSU, AF, BYU, USU, UNLV, UN-Reno, UNM, NMSU, UTEP, SDSU, Fresno. I don’t see how Idaho or SJSU could ever get there, and many of the ones I listed have a very long way to go, but they are options depending on how the future goes..
“I agree that UT/TTech/OU/Ok St. would be good for the Pac, but it is not critical.”
No, it isn’t.
LikeLike
Pac-12 will never take low-tier academic schools like Boise St., USU,NMSU,SDSU. or Fresno St. It won’t take Air Force either. I don’t know enough about the New Mexico schools’ academics or CSU’s to comment on them.
LikeLike
Pac-12 will never take low-tier academic schools like Boise St., USU,NMSU,SDSU. or Fresno St.
I don’t think most of those schools are realistic choices either, but I think you are overestimating how important academics are to the PAC.
Wazzu isn’t exactly an academic powerhouse and the PAC was prepared to accept Texas Tech and Okie St. a few years back.
LikeLike
WSU is not Wisconsin, UC Berkley, or UVA. They are ARWU in 201-300 world and 78-104 groups nationally. It’s not a restaurant and hotel management, or a truck driving school.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“Pac-12 will never take low-tier academic schools like Boise St., USU,NMSU,SDSU. or Fresno St. It won’t take Air Force either. I don’t know enough about the New Mexico schools’ academics or CSU’s to comment on them.”
Not if they stay where they are academically, no. But any school can improve academically. CA could decide they need to elevate some schools like SDSU and Fresno. Similarly Utah could decide to make USU a strong school and NM could improve NMSU. If there are enough students and enough money, things can change. That’s why I said many of the schools I listed are far away now but could be options in the future (especially as partial members should the P12 go that route).
LikeLike
Wazzu isn’t really a useful comparison point. They are basically grandfathered into P5 status at this point, so “school x is comparable to Wazzu” just doesn’t mean much of anything.
Though I’d note that most of the schools you reference are not, in fact, comparable to Wazzu. US News has Wazzu at #138 nationally. That’s way higher than:
Fresno (#46 regional)
Boise (#63 regional)
NM St (unranked national)
Nevada-Reno (#194 national)
UNLV (unranked national)
etc.
Heck, even Texas Tech and OK St ranked below Wazzu, though at least in those cases it was a pretty close comparison.
LikeLike
OkSU just re entered the top 500 ARWU world ranking (out since 2005).
TT just dropped out this year.
LikeLike
Interestingly, CSU has just slipped out of the top 200 world rank, first time in over a decade. And UNM is steady in the mid 200s.
LikeLike
Pingback: Pitt Blather Permalink » Expansiopocolypse Stops by for a Drink
Rice football is using state of the art 3D immersive technology in practice.
http://www.riceowls.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/072815aaa.html
LikeLike
More in-depth info on the technology
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/stanford-cardinal-nfl-virtual-reality-qb-training-031115
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13369076/houston-texans-arian-foster-goes-public-not-believing-god
ESPN has an article on Arian Foster and what it’s like to be a nonbeliever and play football, especially in the south. I don’t suggest we discuss it here, but it’s worth a read.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25261728/sec-football-player-survey-favorites-concerns-fans-playoff
A survey of some SEC players show they are really split about expanding the CFP.
Correct number of teams:
4 – 36%
6 – 12%
8 – 45%
>8 – 6%
There are 9 other questions, including one about their level of concern about concussions.
LikeLike
Drone footage of the Rice soccer and track stadium rebuild.
LikeLike
I recall a short brick wall on the opposite side that I always assumed was part of the original stadium. Looks like they took that down. Didn’t see it in the video.
Can’t say I’m real fond of their blue track, but last time I was there, they were definitely in need of a replacement of their typically colored tartan track.
LikeLike
I remember the brick wall in front of these stands. That was part of the old stadium. I don’t recall any being on the south side.
LikeLike
Iowa and Oklahoma State to open the wrestling season in Kinnick Stadium. To be held the same day as the November 14th Iowa/Minnesota 7pm night game, wrestling meet at 11am.
http://thegazette.com/subject/sports/hlas-wrestling-in-kinnick-stadium-fan-tastic-20150806
LikeLike
That should be great if the weather is decent. I wonder if doing a tournament would be even better, though.
LikeLike
OU beat journalist pumps BYU and Boise for the Big 12:
http://newsok.com/tramel-the-big-12-should-look-west-for-two-new-additions/article/5438621/?page=2
There are a couple of videos-one where they talk about Boren’s first comment and a 2nd where Tramel talks about his reasoning for BYU and Boise.
LikeLike
It’s a good article. I appreciate the opening.
…
The conference is not in danger of expiring. This is not summer 2010, when after a memorable June weekend the Big 12 was in red alert. Its immediate survival was not assured.
But the Big 12 clearly is hurting in summer 2015. Its long-term survival is questionable. The grant-of-rights, which has secured schools’ television money to the conference, has stabilized conference realignment. Since the Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC signed grant-of-rights, no major school has jumped ship. The Big 12 will be here in 2020.
Yet for the Big 12 to be here in 2025, it has to get stronger. Competitively. Cohesively. Marketability.
Does that mean expansion to 12 teams? OU president David Boren thinks so, telling us in June that the Big 12 should be “choosy” and “selective” but should strive to get back to 12 schools.
Boren is right. The Big 12 needs to be 12 schools. But it has to be the right 12. Adding schools just to count to a dozen, or adding schools for convenience, will not save the conference.
The Big 12 has to add two schools that bring value to the Big 12 brand. And in the 21st century, most certainly in the Big 12’s case, that means football brand.
The answer is clear. The Big 12 should add Brigham Young and Boise State. Here’s the case for the Cougars and the Broncos.
Tramel then touches on all the major issues, including academics.
If academics really mattered to the Big 12, it could have solved its problems four years ago. A Big 12 administrator offered up to me the idea of Pitt joining the conference. “The University of Pittsburgh is a terrific academic institution,” he said.
The Big 12 could have added Pitt and Louisville to join West Virginia as an eastern axis, the ACC would have had fewer options when Maryland high-tailed it to the Big Ten and the Big 12 would be much more stable and higher in status than it is now.
But the Big 12 drug its feet — the Big 12 always drags its feet — and Pitt is off the table. So no jabber about academics.
BYU is a prestigious university, …
Boise State, on the other hand, makes Louisville look like Oxford. Some (Texas, Texas, Texas) didn’t want the ‘Ville in the Big 12, and part of that was academic snobbery. But Boise State’s academic reputation is minimal, in part because its lifespan is so short. Boise State has been a four-year school only since the mid-1960s. The University of Pittsburgh was founded in 1787.
The Big 12’s academic standing has taken a hit with the loss of Texas A&M, Nebraska, Missouri and Colorado. There are many schools that would enhance the Big 12’s academic reputation; alas, their football also would hasten the league’s demise.
The Big 12 needs Boise State football and can live with Boise State’s academic status.
And then the finish:
Desperate times call for desperate measures. Maybe these aren’t desperate times for the Big 12. But you can see them from here. Brigham Young and Boise State would put a great deal of distance between the Big 12 and its demise.
LikeLike
http://newsok.com/article/5438718
Here is his explanation of why adding them for football only wouldn’t work.
Football-only members to me brands your conference as mickey mouse. Second rate. The whole reason for expansion is to get the Big 12 on the same plane as the other power conferences. Bringing in football-only members would make the Big 12 less like the Big Ten and SEC, not more.
…
Football-only membership screams temporary. Screams unstable.
…
Schools that are football-only are not vested in the conference. Schools that are football-only would — and should — have an eye toward greener pastures. A football-only model would be a stopgap. It would be seen, correctly, as trying to stop the bleeding.
LikeLike
“Brigham Young and Boise State would put a great deal of distance between the Big 12 and its demise.”
Or is it creating a better (more tolerable) life raft if some more attrition occurs?
LikeLike
Pitt was only going to the B12 if it was the last life boat off the Big East. Pitt landed where they wanted to, and given the timing of the ACC expansion, I expect Pitt told the ACC it would be off the table if the ACC did not act, like Nebraska did with the B1G. Now Louisville was there for the taking, and if the B12 had taken Louisville rather than TCU, it would be BYU and TCU being discussed rather than Boise State.
LikeLike
Bullet, what’s your opinion?
LikeLike
http://newsok.com/article/5438498?slideout=1
Here he explains why NE, CO, TAMU and MO won’t ever return to the B12.
I sense the Big 12 might be waiting on a pie-in-the-sky development. Manna from Heaven. I think Big 12 decision-makers could be waiting to see if all the former members stay content in their new digs.
Nebraska went to the Big Ten. Missouri and Texas A&M bolted to the SEC. Colorado scooted to the Pac-12. And you hear rumblings that all might not be rosy for the expatriates.
…
Having to play at Rutgers is nothing to be excited about. Having to navigate in a 14-team conference is a mess. But that doesn’t mean you want to go back to sharing a boardroom with Texas. That doesn’t mean you trade stability for instability. That doesn’t mean you’ll trade increased status for decreased status.
That’s the fundamental Big 12 problem. In almost every way, the Big 12 has an inferior status from its salad days of a few years ago.
Competitively, …
Academically. The Big 12 lost some of its more distinguished academic members in NU, MU, A&M and CU. That isn’t lost amid the ivory towers, though we never think about that when debating TCU or Baylor for the national semifinals. And that isn’t at all an easy fix.
Collegially. Maybe the most important. These are not the 10 musketeers. In the Big 12, it’s not all for one and one for all. It’s everybody out for himself. Go back to the government landscape. The other power conferences are united states. The Big 12 is a loose collection of colonies.
Does anyone really think Nebraska or Missouri or A&M is coming back to the land of The Longhorn Network? The land where Baylor’s scheduling philosophy is dragging down the league’s reputation. The conference that has gone from leader to follower?
…
Those pale in comparison to the Big 12, which in five years stunningly has fallen in status. The lack of quality leadership — or better yet, the lack of listening to quality leadership — on everything from a conference network to the admission of Louisville to the embracement of those goofy slogans has dropped Big 12 prestige below even that of the Big Eight in its last days.
LikeLike
http://newsok.com/article/5437806
Here Tramel says the B10’s new 1910 scheduling plan further undermines the B12. Playing 9 conference games isn’t as impressive when 2 other P5 conferences also do it plus have CCGs. In addition, the B12 plays more I-AAs than the B10 or P12.
And while the SEC, the Big Ten and the ACC each played eight conference games, the Big 12 played nine. So when the Big 12 became the only Power 5 league without a conference championship game, the Big 12 at least had a counter. But that counter has lost its fastball. The Pac-12 for nine years has been playing a nine-game conference schedule and for the last four seasons also has staged a league title game. Now the Big Ten is doing the same.
And the Big Ten has upped the ante by shirking games against I-AA opponents. …
The Big Ten’s 14 teams in 2015 play seven I-AA opponents total. In 2016, six I-AA games are scheduled, and Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said the league will honor those contracts. The Big 12’s 10 teams in 2015 play eight games against I-AA foes. The conference that most needs to ban I-AA opponents is the Big 12. The only league with a bigger reliance on I-AA opponents is the SEC, which has no credibility issues.
And the Big Ten also is mandating at least one non-conference against fellow major conference opponents, with Notre Dame and Brigham Young being granted “major” status.
As is, the Big Ten has only one school not playing a major-conference opponent — Penn State has an absurdly weak schedule. But no weaker than Big 12 contenders OSU and Baylor, along with Kansas State. Three marquee Big 12 schools have a schedule void of a legitimate non-conference opponent, yet it’s the Big Ten announcing scheduling mandates.
Let’s review. The Big 12 does not have a conference championship game; every other Power 5 league does. A heavy reliance on I-AA opponents for the Big 12, at a rate far greater than every other Power 5 conference except the SEC, which has no image problems. And now the Big Ten has joined the Big 12 in playing a nine-game conference schedule, with the added prestige of scheduling mandates and a league title game.
The Big Ten’s scheduling decree came via athletic director’s agreement, according to Delany, so it’s not some kind of binding vote. It’s merely a sign that the Big Ten respects its leadership. Delany has pushed for an upgrade in scheduling, and the Big Ten has followed suit.
Contrast that with the Big 12, where scheduling suggestions by commissioner Bob Bowlsby have been met largely with yawns. In the Big 12, few decisions are made with the idea that it would be good for the conference. The Big 12 is more a confederation of colonies than a united republic.
The Big Ten’s 1910 scheduling initiative is a sign of a conference with vision. The nine-game format, with mandated quality of opponents, and the Big Ten’s championship game, will give the Big Ten all kinds of ammunition in the committee room of the College Football Playoff. Most football decisions these days are made with an eye to barging into the four-team field. The Big 12’s decisions often seem to be made with an eye toward finding a back door into the committee room at the Gaylord Texan.
…
The Big Ten acts like a conference that plans to be around for the next century. With the Big 12, you wonder about the next decade.
LikeLike
Penn State’s “absurdly weak schedule” is a consequence of the NCAA’s overreach with the Sandusky Scandal. Due to the draconian penalties that were applied in 2012 in which Penn State appeared to be crippled for the next 5-10 years, penalties which have since been rescinded when the NCAA crapped their pants at the prospect of having their dirty laundry exposed in a courtroom, Penn State was forced to water down their schedule dramatically in order to try to remain competitive. When you make such a dismissive diss, you might want to include a little context!
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/chicago/nhl/story/_/id/13393326/police-confirm-investigation-alleged-incident-chicago-blackhawks-forward-patrick-kane-house
Tough times for Chicago sports fans. Patrick Kane is accused of sexual assault in his home in NY and the chancellor of UIUC has stepped down over off the field issues in athletics.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/13391673/illinois-urbana-champaign-chancellor-resigns-athlete-lawsuits-external-issues
LikeLike
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-university-of-illinois-chancellor-resigns-20150806-story.html
Just to be clear, the athletic issues were only a small factor in in the resignation of Chancellor
Wise.
Her decision to withdraw a job offer to professor over his statements about Israel got the university censured by the American Association of University Professors, led to vote of no confidence in her leadership by more than a dozen of the university’s academic departments and led to boycott by the faculty of other universities.
LikeLike
I based what I said on the article. It mentioned “external issues” and the athletic issues specifically with no mention of the issue you are describing.
LikeLike
The professor denied a position had made virulently anti-semitic statements. Other professors were offended by the refusal to hire because anti-semitism is rampant on our college campuses among both faculty and students.
LikeLike
His statements were unquestionably anti-Israel and anti-Zionist, and in some cases quite offensive, but they didn’t quite cross into antisemitism (at least in my view).
LikeLike
I will say that I think U of I made a mistake offering him the job in the first place and I’m not a fan of his.
However, his clumsy, hyperbolic and overly cute rhetorical flourishes don’t appear to cross the the line between opposing Israel and actually demeaning/defaming Jewish people.
LikeLike
I think several of those tweets started painting large groups of people with a very broad brush.
You’re an “awful person” if you disagree with him. You have to be a “sociopath” to support Israel. No “person of conscience” can support Israel. You’re at best “‘hopelessly brainwashed'” if you support Israel.
I think this one causes the most trouble:
Zionists: transforming “antisemitism” from something horrible into something honorable since 1948.
I think I know what he means, but it can also be read as advocating antisemitism and/or denying antisemitism exists.
The personal attack on Netanyahu did him no favors, either. You can disagree with him vehemently and still be surprised “if Netanyahu appeared on TV with a necklace made from the teeth of Palestinian children.”
I won’t argue about whether his tweets cross the line enough to be labelled antisemitic, but I think they started to cross a line. His supporters say people need to be more open-minded and talk about academic freedom, but how can a pro-Israel student read those tweets and not wonder if he’ll get fair treatment in Salaita’s class? Where is Salaita’s tolerance for opposing viewpoints?
I understand it’s an emotional issue, but it’s the area he teaches in. If he can’t be more levelheaded about it, he doesn’t deserve a tenured position.
LikeLike
I agree with Brian. Those ones he quoted sound pretty anti-Semitic to me.
His comments on being anti-Israeli and talking about Hamas being indigenous vs. colonials don’t cross any lines. But those others do. Anti-Semitism is “honorable?” You have to be a socio-path to not agree with him?
LikeLike
More info on Illinois Chancellor’s resignation
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-university-of-illinois-private-emails-20150807-story.html#page=1
University administrators have been using their personal email accounts to conduct university business in order to avoid FOIA.
Over 1100 of those emails were released yesterday.
LikeLike
http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/court-holds-that-u-of-illinois-broke-contract-in-salaita-case/102881
Also, Thursday a Federal judge declined to dismiss the ousted professor’s lawsuit against the school.
LikeLike
Basically, the judge decided that there was a contract in place despite UI trying to claim otherwise. He did deny several of Salaita’s claims, though.
LikeLike
Even more on Illinois’ Chancellor
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/08/13/u-illinois-board-rejects-400000-deal-outgoing-chancellor
The Board of Trustees has rejected Chancellor Wise’s resignation (over the advice of the system President) and will instead attempt to dismiss her for cause (i.e. fire her). Doing so is legally risky, but would deny Wise a $400,000 buyout and one year paid sabbatical.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/13393382/minnesota-golden-gophers-ad-norwood-teague-resigns-amid-sexual-harassment-allegations
MN’s AD steps down after some drunken texts to co-workers. He says he’ll seek alcohol abuse treatment.
LikeLike
I wonder where MN goes from here. Maturi invested money across the board but allowed MN to fall behind in the facilities arms race. Teague focused on the revenue sports and hoped for trickle down to the non-revenue sports. Does the new AD follow Teague’s lead or Maturi’s? How will the scheduling philosophy change? How much impact does this have on the leeway Kill and Pitino have to have a bad season sometimes?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/121616/cfbrank-by-the-numbers-ohio-state-leads-the-way
ESPN ranked the top 100 CFB players for this season. This post has links to the list but also a breakdown of the rankings. 39 teams had at least 1 player on the list.
Most players by team:
OSU – 9
Baylor – 7
AL, MS, USC – 5
Conference:
SEC – 33
B10 – 19
P12 – 16
ACC, B12 – 14
By position:
QB, WR, RB – 14
OT, DE, LB – 11
CB – 8
DT – 7
S – 6
C – 3
TE – 2
OG – 1
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2015/08/07/michigan-stadium-reduces-capacity–107-601/31312493/
The Big House is down to 107,601 (-2300 from before) after changes made for ADA compliance (wider aisles, handrails). It’s still the largest stadium in CFB, but not by much. It’ll be harder for MI to win the attendance crown every year now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_football_stadiums_by_capacity
CFB stadiums over 100k now:
MI – 107,601
PSU – 106,572
OSU – 104,944
TAMU – 102,512
TN – 102,455
LSU – 102,321
AL – 101,821
UT – 100,119
LikeLike
Schools are moving away from selling jerseys with player numbers. The trend seems to be to use the last two digits of the year as the only number available or one of the few numbers (OSU will sell #1 and #yy, for example, while MI will also sell #4 for Harbaugh).
LikeLike
http://awfulannouncing.com/2015/espn-names-announcing-teams-for-2015-college-football-season.html
ESPN has announced their CFB coverage teams for this year, with a decent amount of change as Rece Davis moves from Thursday nights to GameDay.
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/football/4-reasons-the-cfb-playoff-is-the-death-knell-for-the-sec.html
Four reasons the playoff is the death knell for SEC dominance. They aren’t all playoff related, though, or at least not directly.
1. Elite coaching is more widespread now
2. 4 teams get in, so the SEC doesn’t get as much benefit from their reputation
3. ESPN’s power is starting to slip
4. The committee really values conference champs, so the SEC getting 2 teams will be very hard
That last point ties into my thinking about G5 access to the playoff. Things vary form year to year, but I think a rough pecking order for CFP access is this:
13-0 P5 champ
12-0 B12 champ
12-0 ND
12-1 P5 champ
11-1 B12 champ
11-1 ND
13-0 AAC/MWC champ
12-0 BYU
13-0 CUSA champ
13-0 MAC champ
12-0 Army
12-0 SB champ
11-2 P5 champ
10-2 B12 champ
10-2 ND
12-1 AAC/MWC champ
11-1 BYU
12-1 CUSA champ
12-1 MAC champ
11-1 Army
11-1 SB champ
10-3 P5 champ
9-3 B12 champ
9-3 ND
Within the P5, right now reputation would be SEC > P12 > B10 > ACC but it really comes down to the individual teams and how they look.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t say that, over time, SEC coaching has generally been better than that of the other conferences. . . .
The politics of NCAA committees will always militate against two playoff teams form one conference. And with the relative weakness of SEC scheduling, it just seems highly unlikely to happen. IMO, this is good. If you aren’t good enough to be conference champ, how can you be good enough to be national champ?
LikeLike
Playoff committee isn’t an NCAA function.
We already managed to have an all sec bcs final (two out of two).
I agree with what you are wanting, but you are assuming that because we call it a playoff it is one. It is still a four team invitational created to drive TV ratings, not to necessarily discover the best team.
LikeLike
Redwood86,
“I wouldn’t say that, over time, SEC coaching has generally been better than that of the other conferences. . . .”
Over their recent run, they did have Saban and Meyer (consensus top 2 CFB coaches) plus Spurrier and Miles (NCG winners) and then guys like Richt, Petrino, Franklin and Tuberville. Nobody else could match that during that span.
“The politics of NCAA committees will always militate against two playoff teams form one conference.”
Yes, except reality says that in most years not all P5 conferences will have playoff-caliber champions. If only 3 of them do, then it’s either an independent, a G5 champ or a P5 runner up. Take a year like 2011 when the SEC W champ and runner up were #1 and #2.
2011 final BCS rankings:
1. LSU 13-0*
2. AL 11-1
3. OkSU 11-1*
4. Stanford 11-1
5. USC 11-1
6. OR 11-2*
7. AR 10-2
8. Boise 11-1
9. WI 11-2*
14. Clemson 10-3*
16. TCU 10-2*
23. WV 9-3*
* – conference champion
LSU and OkSU are givens. I’ll assume OR gets in as the P12 champ. Would they really take #9 WI over #2 AL? Even a B10 homer has to admit AL was a much better team that year.
“And with the relative weakness of SEC scheduling, it just seems highly unlikely to happen.”
It it’s close, it won’t happen. Weak OOC scheduling could hurt an SEC team, but they have a mandatory P5 OOC game now plus a tough conference schedule.
“IMO, this is good. If you aren’t good enough to be conference champ, how can you be good enough to be national champ?”
I agree, but they refused to make winning your conference a requirement. Based on that, I have to conclude it’s possible for a great runner up to get in over some weak champions.
LikeLike
Good analysis. I agree that in 2011 it would have been LSU, Okie State, Oregon, and Alabama. But this type of situation will be rare. First, the BiG has improved. Second, it is not often that the ACC + ND will not have a strong champ.
Interestingly, LSU beat both Oregon and Bama that year in regular season.
LikeLike
I agree it will be the exception, not the rule. Expansion means most P5 conferences should generate an elite team. But all it takes is a CCG upset to screw that up. The other possible issue is having too many good teams, so attrition leaves everyone with 2 losses.
If I had to guess, I think it’ll happen 2 or 3 times in this first 12 year contract for the playoff.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/enemy-of-the-state-classic/2015/08/57137/the-enemy-of-the-state-classic-championship
It’s been scientifically proven that OSU fans hate Mark may more than anyone/anything else (U of M was not 1 of the options). The 4 brackets were Media, Michigan Men and 2 groups of At Large.
In the 32 enemy tournament, May beat SN’s Matt Hayes, Fox’s Clay Travis, Yahoo’s Pat Forde, PSU Cultists and the SEC (only the 5 seed, surprisingly) head to head.
Total vote tally for all 5 rounds: 9306-1075 (8.65:1)
Hayes: 1836-52 (35:1)
Travis: 1639-103 (16:1)
Forde: 2185-96 (23:1)
PSU fans: 2145-271 (7.9:1)
SEC: 1501-553 (2.7:1)
I know many non-OSU fans never understood it, but it’s solid evidence of how despised May is by OSU fans.
Some surprises (to me) along the way:
1st round
Dennis Dodd beat Paul Finebaum
Pat Forde beat George Dohrmann
Sweet 16
PSU cultists beat Nick Saban (it was very close, though)
Elite 8
Desmond Howard beta Bo Schembechler (recency bias)
PSU cultists beat Ed Rife (the giver of tats for memorabilia)
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2015/08/03/pac-12-football-commissioner-larry-scott-on-the-future-of-the-pac12nets-a-directv-deal-the-college-football-playoffs-and-more/
Larry Scott on some big picture issues.
AT&T and DirecTV:
On the prospects for the Pac-12 Networks airing on DTV by the start of the football season: “I don’t know that it’s realistic to think that before the start of the season (there will be a) resolution.”
P12N:
The Pac-12 is facing a significant revenue gap in coming years relative to the Big Ten and SEC, largely because its wholly-owned Pac12Nets have just 12 millions (approx) subscribers.
The Big Ten and SEC networks, which have 60+ million subscribers and mint money, are co-owned by FOX and ESPN, respectively.
Multiple sources told the Hotline the conference has hired an investment advisory firm (Lazard, a boutique NYC-based outfit) to explore long-term strategic alternatives for the Pac12Nets.
The most-likely alternative, of course, is an equity sale of 49% – 51% of the networks.
I asked Scott directly.
“We work with a lot of advisers. That’s not unusual,” he said. “We’re looking at the landscape. We like our position, but we’re always evaluating.”
…
Scott also seemed to leave himself room to maneuver when asked about the Pac12Nets during a Q&A with reporters: “What’s important is to create long-term value for the conference and not chase short-term goals. Once we get full distribution, there will be a looking-in point.”
…
More on the Pac12Nets future: “We’ve got a lot of options in a world that’s changing. No one has an answer. You’re kind of hedging bets. I value having flexibility. That might change.”
(The question, which the Hotline has addressed in the past is this: What’s best for the conference long-term — retaining 100% ownership of the networks — is not necessarily best for the campuses in the short- and intermediate-term because of the revenue gap with the SEC and B1G.
(But IDing the optimal window for an equity sale is not easy: Rights fees for live sports could continue to soar over the next decade, or reach a point of stagnation.
Playoff:
On standardizing the schedules across the Power 5 leagues: “I’d like to see it … It may happen naturally. If a few more years go by and the benefit of the doubt is given to the tough schedules, it will happen.”
On the current selection process: “I see it as an advantage because of the way the playoff has been structured and the way the committee has been instructed … Short-term, I don’t mind that other conferences aren’t scheduling as tough as we are because I think it will help us competitively.”
On respect: “Until we win the national championship, I don’t think we will get the recognition nationally that we’re looking for, and that’s fair to an extent. That’s just the way our culture is. To the winner go the spoils.”
Other:
On ESPN cutbacks potentially affecting rights fees: “I’m glad we’ve got our deal done. I’d be more worried if I were the Big Ten coming up.”
…
On his greatest long-term worry: “If there’s an adverse ruling in the legal cases. I’d hate to see professionalism of college athletics.”
…
On the Big 12 limiting contact to two days (including gameday): “We haven’t had a chance to talk about that. If there’s an openness … we’ll look at it.”
Am I the only one who wonders if a small part of ESPN cutting back is as a negotiating tactic with the B10 (as well as freeing up cash to pay the B10)?
LikeLike
“Am I the only one who wonders if a small part of ESPN cutting back is as a negotiating tactic with the B10 (as well as freeing up cash to pay the B10)?”
I doubt short term moves (letting a few employees go) is done to enable continuing the same general plan. If they are truly tightening their belt it gives Fox, NBC, etc a legit reason to increase their efforts to gain some a very valuable share of the live sports market, that ESPN has admittedly dominated for some time.
Is it just me, or does it seem (ever since missing badly on the OU/OkSU to the PAC) Wilner has become a bit of a Larry Scott/PAC hater? Did his ’10 sources use/manipulate him, or don’t currently give anything up?
LikeLike
I don’t think he’s a hater as much as he realized Scott talked a bigger game than he could deliver. I think people’s expectation were so high when he came in that reality is starting to set in and it’s not what they hoped it would be. The P12 isn’t the SEC or B10 even with a true professional as commissioner, but I think many hoped it was Hansen holding them back.
LikeLike
Perhaps, but I don’t recall Scott promising anything publicly. I do recall media members leading the fanboy talk (Wilner among them). Wilner seems to be blaming Scott for not reaching Wilner’s short term expectations. Or perhaps he’s just trying to drive interest by writing provocative pieces about immediate income while ignoring longer term benefits of ownership.
LikeLike
To be fair, he does mention that tradeoff between the short term benefits and the long term benefits of different network models. He talks about how 100% ownership gives you more flexibility but is riskier because there’s no safety net of guaranteed money. On the up side, the P12 can sell a stake in their network to get a capital infusion. The questions are when is the best time to sell and how much are you willing to part with?
I think his analysis has shown that no reasonable equity offer for part of P12N will allow the P12 to catch up with the B10 and SEC in payouts because their fans just aren’t as fervent and aren’t spread as widely. There is no simple solution to that problem. The question is how much does that money gap matter, since the B10 spends it on broad athletic programs. The SEC dumps it all into football but there have to be diminishing returns at some point for football spending.
LikeLike
I think you got it right. Wilner is trying to compare three three different entities as if they are nearly the same. They are not. And the same with their T3 setup, making immediate income seem the measure of “success”. There is far greater a difference in athletic department income within each conference, even from the top to the middle let alone the bottom, than the difference in conf distributions from their respective networks.
“…but is riskier because there’s no safety net of guaranteed money.”
Funny how “guaranteed money” is now the safety net. Earlier it was a safety net for cost of startup and operation.
If, as was said when the P12N was being formed, money was not the primary concern, the presidents and chancellors are probably fairly satisfied after three years…as long as the other objectives are being worked on/satisfied. And changes in Disney/ESPN’s (or even Fox with 51% BTN ownership) corporate fortunes and strategies will only have a tangential, not direct effect.
LikeLike
Well based on the $ guarantees made to USC and UCLA not being needed, it seems like he delivered more than they expected.
LikeLike
” The question is how much does that money gap matter, since the B10 spends it on broad athletic programs. The SEC dumps it all into football but there have to be diminishing returns at some point for football spending.”
The SEC doesn’t have as many sports as the Big Ten, but the SEC has a spending race in most of the sports it sponsors. The most notable is in men’s basketball, where most of the coaching staffs have been overhauled in the past several years, with a big increase of hiring. Perhaps the most emblematic hire has been South Carolina, far from a men’s basketball school, hiring away Kansas State’s head coach.
But it exists in other sports as well. 2 years ago, Auburn hired the softball coach away from Arizona State who had won 2 NCAA championships and then hired away the baseball coach from Oklahoma. This isn’t a school focusing all it’s wealth on football. (As an aside, it’s worked in softball so far; they made it to the world series last year).
The SEC continues to be the baseball powerhouse and has recently become the best softball league. Women’s basketball is as deep as any league in the country, and, if you look at the “too early” projections for next year, experts think men’s basketball has made a strong rebound. And there are also strong tennis, track and field, and other sports programs.
Programs within the SEC are feeling a need to keep up, and spending has surged in many of these sports. I’m sure a big reason why Auburn spent the money on their softball program was because Alabama had recently become a national power in the sport.
LikeLike
The point made is in reference to the number of sponsored sports. The SEC schools significantly lag in that area
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Funny how “guaranteed money” is now the safety net. Earlier it was a safety net for cost of startup and operation.”
Just to be clear, that’s me saying that and not Wilner.
LikeLike
But it does reflect his current emphasis on money now, as opposed to value longer term.
LikeLike
m (Ag),
” The question is how much does that money gap matter, since the B10 spends it on broad athletic programs. The SEC dumps it all into football but there have to be diminishing returns at some point for football spending.”
“The SEC doesn’t have as many sports as the Big Ten, but the SEC has a spending race in most of the sports it sponsors.”
I thought it was obvious that my statement was exaggerating for effect. Obviously the SEC doesn’t only spend money on football, but they aren’t going to threaten the P12 or B10 in terms of breadth of their ADs anytime soon. That makes it harder to compare the financial impact of things since the P12 and SEC would spend the same money differently anyway.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“But it does reflect his current emphasis on money now, as opposed to value longer term.”
One is measurable and the other isn’t. A bird in the hand …
Nobody knows what value their network will have in the future. You can measure what the network is paying out right now, though. I don’t think it’s wrong for him to point out that the P12 will be trailing significantly in money near term. He’s tried to estimate what the P12N could be worth in the future before, IIRC, but it’s a WAG.
LikeLike
“Am I the only one who wonders if a small part of ESPN cutting back is as a negotiating tactic with the B10 (as well as freeing up cash to pay the B10)?”
Yes, you are the only one. B10 is small potatoes in the ESPN scheme.
Disney profits and stock are falling. ESPN, which was a huge part of that, is responding to something far more important and more immediate than 1 conference’s TV contract which doesn’t expire for a couple of years.
ESPN wants the Big 10, but will do fine with or without them.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s small potatoes. It’s a ton of inventory on Fall Saturdays and throughout college basketball season. ESPN has limited pro sports properties. 1 NFL game and 1 or 2 MLB games per week. They have 50% of the NBA but not much else. They rely significantly on college sports properties and they don’t have the NCAA tourney.
LikeLike
The Big 10 has a basketball contract with CBS. Not sure what if any B1G basketball ESPN has. They have tons of basketball. Good basketball isn’t limited to the P5.
As for football, they will still have all the ACC, most of the SEC and half of the Pac 12 and Big 12, regardless of what happens with the Big 10. That adds up to close to 200 games. And they also have some G5 rights for filling in slots.
LikeLike
The B1G CBS contract is somewhat limited. Most games are on BTN or ESPN. Recall that the B1G has the highest BB ratings of any conference. Certainly there is plenty of other basketball but except for the ACC and Kentucky ratings are are minimal.
LikeLike
bullet,
“B10 is small potatoes in the ESPN scheme.”
Well, I did say a small part of the decision, but never mind that. Let’s look at the numbers.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2014/04/29/the-value-of-espn-surpasses-50-billion/
The result is a company worth $50.8 billion, according to Wunderlich Securities research analyst Matthew Harrigan, who did a valuation analysis last month of ESPN’s parent Walt Disney DIS +1.51% based on discounted cash flows (the Mouse House bought ESPN as part of its purchase of Capital Cities/ABC in 1996; Disney’s current market value is $137 billion).
…
The result is an expected $6.3 billion from domestic affiliate fees this year that acts as a consistent, guaranteed revenue stream for Disney.
The story is even better on the advertising side. The U.S. economy has been sluggish the past five years as it recovers from the Great Recession, but ESPN ad revenues are up 63% to a projected $3.9 billion this year, according to Wunderlich. Total ESPN revenue, including ads, affiliate fees as well as ESPN.com, ESPN The Magazine and the international business, is expected to hit $11.2 billion this year.
..
Despite the jump in programming costs, ESPN’s profit margins stayed high by keeping the lid on production and other costs. Operating margins hovered around 40% in recent years and Wunderlich expects them to stay there for the next five years at least.
ESPN was valued at roughly $50B last year and making over $11B in revenue, with a 40% operating margin.
ESPN is spending a lot on sports rights fees, though.
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/is-espn-a-giant-bubble-about-to-burst-071215
ESPN has been on a buying spree of late pledging $1.9 billion a year to the NFL for Monday Night Football, $1.47 billion to the NBA, $700 million to Major League baseball, $608 million for the College Football Playoff, and hundreds of millions more to the SEC, the ACC, the Big 12 and the Pac 12. At an absolute minimum it would appear that ESPN presently pays out nearly $6 billion a year to sports leagues just in rights fees.
Clay Travis makes a rough estimate of $6B per year, so let’s use that number.
ESPN is currently working on a $1B over 10 years deal with the B10 that has since grown with the addition of new teams. Assuming a pro rata increase, that would’ve been a $1.27B deal over 10 years for 14 teams instead of 11, or $127M per year on average. Obviously that contract has annual escalators, though, so the B10 is currently getting more than that.
http://www.jconline.com/story/sports/college/purdue/football/2014/04/25/big-ten-schools-expecting-big-payouts-continue/8187133/
The Big Ten is anticipating 12 schools will receive roughly $33 million in 2017-18 from television revenue alone — about a $10 million per school increase from 2016-17 projection, the final year of a 10-year, $1 billion deal which started in 2007-08.
$23M just from TV in the last year of the old deals becomes $33M at the start of the new deal. Granted, some of that will be a bump from the new CCG deal but that game is only worth about $2M per school per year so a bump is really mostly rounding error in the bigger picture. The hoops deal pays about $1M per school, so let’s ignore it too. Let’s assign the $10M bump all to the new tier 1 deal. That’s a $140M per year increase overall.
We know the BTN pays around $8M per year, so that’s $11M from other TV sources. That leaves $12M from ESPN in the old deal (average was $9M per school per year). In other words, ESPN will pay the B10 roughly $168M that last year and then the deal is expected to grow by $140M. That means a new deal would be worth about $300M per year at the start and then grow.
$300M is 5% of $6B. That’s not huge, but small potatoes might be a bit of an exaggeration.
“ESPN, which was a huge part of that, is responding to something far more important and more immediate than 1 conference’s TV contract which doesn’t expire for a couple of years.”
Are they even losing subscribers faster than they increase their fees yet? Obviously their profit margin is dropping, but they’ve been running at an obscene profit margin so far. No mature business could expect that to continue. The various sports rights had to get more expensive until ESPN settled into a more modest profit margin.
“ESPN wants the Big 10, but will do fine with or without them.”
Of course they will, and nobody has every said otherwise. I just wondered if a bit of the timing and size of the cuts were aligned with the only major negotiation for rights they’ll face in the near future starting very soon.
LikeLike
Brian – Your analysis is good but I would add that it misses the fact that if ESPN did not carry B1G sports there could be a sizable amount of subscribers that would have little use for ESPN programming. ESPN can’t afford to make their programming less compelling to the national sports consumer if they want to preserve the bundling model and sports aggregation model.
LikeLike
NBC and the Premier League just announced a 6 year extension of their deal. No $$ terms were released except to say it will be an increase from the existing contract.
Interesting that several sources say they were competing against another joint Fox/ESPN bid. That makes sense considering with the CFB they have, ESPN couldn’t take on the EPL by themselves.
It makes one wonder if instead of this ESPN versus Fox battle people are expecting over the B1G contract, that they will instead cooperate to 1) make sure they keep the B1G away from anyone else wanting a cfb presence, and 2) divide up the B1G content to fit best amongst the other contracts they each have.
LikeLike
It makes sense for them to bid jointly. ESPN knows FOX is the only real competitor for the B10, and be joining forces they prevent a bidding war. Both networks win by keeping the costs down and the B10 loses.
LikeLike
“Both networks win by keeping the costs down and the B10 loses.”
You don’t think it would work like it did with the PAC?
When combined, both were willing to bid more than half their individual bids resulting in a significant increase. Neither, by themselves had the “shelf space” to adequately handle the whole offered inventory.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“You don’t think it would work like it did with the PAC?
When combined, both were willing to bid more than half their individual bids resulting in a significant increase. Neither, by themselves had the “shelf space” to adequately handle the whole offered inventory.”
Personally, no. I think they are more likely to bid each other up if they stay separate. Together they can both agree on a suitable price. The B10 is more valuable to them than the P12, so they’ll find the shelf space. Especially ESPN since they already have all those B10 games. They don’t need to make room. FOX might have a harder time taking on everything.
LikeLike
Based on this link (September 27, 2014):
http://www.startribune.com/scoggins-kill-has-theories-on-unfavorable-gophers-football-schedule/277289381/
The Big Ten has already spent much time working on football scheduling deep into the next decade.
But still no clues about cross-division scheduling after Year 2019 which remains a brain-teaser.
LikeLike
Chet,
“The Big Ten has already spent much time working on football scheduling deep into the next decade.
But still no clues about cross-division scheduling after Year 2019 which remains a brain-teaser.”
Not officially, but thanks to a formerly frequent visitor here (Richard) and comments from Delany, we basically do know what the B10 schedules will be for next 36 years if there is no change in plan.
With the move to 9 games in 2016, the B10 also begins “parity-based scheduling.”
Knowns:
1. Everyone will play 6 games in their division, plus In and PU will play every year.
2. The B10 split teams into 3 tiers for crossover scheduling:
a. NE, WI, IA vs OSU, MI, PSU
b. MN, NW, IL vs MSU, MD, RU
c. PU vs IN
3. Scheduling plan for the first 18 years:
a. Each team will have a locked game against a team from the same tier in the other division. That opponent will be rotated every 6 years.
b. An 8th game will be played against a crossover team from the other main tier (or a main tier for IN and PU). That team will rotate annually so you get a home and home with each over 6 years.
c. The final game will rotate through the remaining 2 crossover teams in your same tier and PU/IN. This will also rotate annually for 6 years.
Example:
I’ll use OSU.
Division – MI, PSU, MSU, MD, RU, IN
Crossovers by year (published):
2016 – NE, @WI, NW
2017 – @NE, @IA, IL
2018 – NE, @PU, MN
2019 – @NE, WI, @NW
Continuing the pattern:
2020 – NE, IA, @IL
2021 – @NE, PU, @MN
2022 – 2027 – either WI or IA locked
2028 – 2033 – the other one of WI or IA is locked
d. End results
Teams play 6 division mates 100%, 3 tier mates 56% (10 in 18 yrs), 4 others 33% (6 in 18 yrs)
IN and PU play 7 teams 100% and the other 6 33% (6 in 18 yrs)
4. After 18 years, the B10 is supposed to flip the plan to balance things out. That would mean pairing OSU, MI and PSU with MN, NW and IL while NE, WI and IA get MSU, MD and RU. Few people believe they’ll ever actually do that, though, as it reduces the number of valuable games for TV.
LikeLike
Brian,
Please allow me to use your example, to illustrate the mathematical nature of this scheduling riddle:
2016 – NE, @WI, NW
2017 – @NE, @IA, IL
2018 – NE, @PU, MN
2019 – @NE, WI, @NW
2020 – NE, IA, @IL
2021 – @NE, PU, @MN
If the intention would be to swap NE with NW, then this allows a simple swap as follows:
2021 – @NE, PU, @MN
2022 – NW, @WI, NE
2023 – @NW, @IA, IL
2024 – NW, @PU, MN
2025 – @NW, WI, @NE
Etc
If the intention would be to swap NE with WI, then such simple swap could happen one year earlier:
2021 – @WI, PU, @MN
2022 – WI, @NE, NW
2023 – @WI, @IA, IL
Etc
But consider the second example for PSU’s schedule:
2021 – @IA, @WI, IL
2022 – IA, @PU, MN
2023 – @IA, @NW, NE
Etc
Here PSU would swap PU for IA. But here PU is locked with IN.
These examples then suggest that parity-scheduling would expect swapping locked schools at different swapping frequencies, among which are numerous possibilities.
(thus maddening ‒ for geeks like myself ‒ to muse over)
LikeLike
Chet,
“Please allow me to use your example, to illustrate the mathematical nature of this scheduling riddle:”
Sure.
“2016 – NE, @WI, NW
2017 – @NE, @IA, IL
2018 – NE, @PU, MN
2019 – @NE, WI, @NW
2020 – NE, IA, @IL
2021 – @NE, PU, @MN”
“If the intention would be to swap NE with NW, then this allows a simple swap as follows:”
But it isn’t. It would be swapping NE with WI or IA. OSU will only be locked with of those 3.
“If the intention would be to swap NE with WI, then such simple swap could happen one year earlier:”
2021 – @WI, PU, @MN
2022 – WI, @NE, NW
2023 – @WI, @IA, IL
Etc”
But it can’t if you want to keep the pattern. You need to lock NE for 6 years, then swap.
2022 – WI, @NE, NW
2023 – @WI, @IA, IL
2024 – WI, @PU, MN
2025 – @WI, NE, @NW
2026 – WI, IA, @IL
2027 – @WI, PU, @MN
This is just one option, I don’t know how exactly they plan to deal with home and away.
“But consider the second example for PSU’s schedule:
2021 – @IA, @WI, IL
2022 – IA, @PU, MN
2023 – @IA, @NW, NE
Etc
Here PSU would swap PU for IA. But here PU is locked with IN.”
PSU has IA locked for the first 6 years, then they get WI or NE. PU is only ever locked with IN and plays everyone else once every 3 years.
“These examples then suggest that parity-scheduling would expect swapping locked schools at different swapping frequencies, among which are numerous possibilities.”
A new cycle starts every 6 years. There will be some shake ups at that point (team plays at team B twice in a row, the gap between games grows to 4 years sometimes, etc).
LikeLike
Yet based on this link (May 24, 2015), parity-based scheduling is less simple than first reckoned:
http://thegazette.com/subject/sports/b1g-ads-seek-more-balance-in-future-football-schedules-20150524
Big Ten football schedules are set through Year 2019, and officials had plans to extend them into the next decade … But league athletics directors had concerns about scheduling balance going forward, and future schedules were scuttled this week at the Big Ten’s spring meetings.
“We saw a mock-up, and we sent it back to the drawing board,” Purdue Athletics Director Morgan Burke said. “We gave them three or four principles we thought we probably ought to get incorporated in the thought process … I think what they did helped spark us to realize, take a look at home and away, how quickly can you cycle through, so that you try to create some balance.”
But cycling non-divisional match-ups are challenging with an unbalanced league schedule. Among the issues one athletics director cited was a team playing on the road at an opposite division foe twice in a three- or four-year period but not playing host to that team until several years later.
“Just make sure we’re applying a common set of standards and maintain things like home-and-away balance and east-west balance and marquee matchups and that sort of thing,” Indiana Athletics Director Fred Glass said. “I think the scheduling guys do a great job. We have to help give them principles to follow and make a schedule that’s a competitively balanced in a system that’s inherently non-competitively balanced because you don’t play everybody.”
LikeLike
Chet,
“Yet based on this link (May 24, 2015), parity-based scheduling is less simple than first reckoned:”
I bolded “if there is no change in plan” for a reason. It’a rare for such a long term plan to survive untouched.
“We saw a mock-up, and we sent it back to the drawing board,” Purdue Athletics Director Morgan Burke said. “We gave them three or four principles we thought we probably ought to get incorporated in the thought process … I think what they did helped spark us to realize, take a look at home and away, how quickly can you cycle through, so that you try to create some balance.”
I’ll just point out that coaches and ADs are notorious whiners about schedules. No schedule has ever satisfied every school. The B10 already has strict H/A rules for their schedules (no more than 2 away games in a row, an even split in the last 4 weeks) and the plan would rotate H/A for every team. It sounds like people are complaining about the actual schedules but not the underlying plan, though.
But cycling non-divisional match-ups are challenging with an unbalanced league schedule. Among the issues one athletics director cited was a team playing on the road at an opposite division foe twice in a three- or four-year period but not playing host to that team until several years later.
In order to keep every school in the division with the same number of home games, maybe they’ve had to flip some of the plan’s H/A locations in future years. It’s hard to know exactly what they’re complaining about when we haven’t seen the proposed schedules.
“It’s too long of a period, 13, 14 years and, yes, it all evens out, but it doesn’t even out for a decade,” Burke said. “They’re going to take the work that we gave them. It’s important because we need to be able to schedule our non-conference games.”
These may be issues the scheduling company can readily fix when devising a new set of schedules.
The athletics directors’ discussion highlighted the Big Ten’s challenges of scheduling with a larger conference and an odd number of games.
“Just make sure we’re applying a common set of standards and maintain things like home-and-away balance and east-west balance and marquee matchups and that sort of thing,” Indiana Athletics Director Fred Glass said. “I think the scheduling guys do a great job. We have to help give them principles to follow and make a schedule that’s a competitively balanced in a system that’s inherently non-competitively balanced because you don’t play everybody.”
It sounds like they want to over-constrain the system and then complain when no schedule meets all of their concerns.
The league has no plans to expand to a 10-game conference schedule in the future, Burke said.
“I think we’re kind of dead on that,” he said.
For those who wondered.
LikeLike
Jerry Kill believes in some mass conspiracy to keep Minnesota down with their schedule and to prop up Wisconsin. While Wisconsin’s schedule is light on paper for 2015, 2016 looks to be brutal. It’s all part of the deal.
LikeLike
Yellow Submarine says:
Pablo Esta Muerto
LikeLike
First off, I am a Texas graduate and definitely a lifelong fan of UT. I really think it’s a shame that the Big 12 fragmented as it did because that was certainly our best option. If I could have had my way I would have rather the LHN been started as a B12N and maybe the conference turns into a true partnership. That said, as it is currently constituted the Big 12 is not viable long-term, IMO. I think independence would be the best scenario for Texas. They are somewhat isolated geographically speaking, and moving to any of the other P5 conferences would have issues. Being able to schedule nationally in each of the sports would be a benefit and would allow for even greater leveraging of the tremendous asset that is the LHN.
However, if a move to a new conference became forced say, by the CFP ramifications, etc then the ACC would be the best option. In my perfect world, there would be a true “merger” of Big 12 and ACC, with some schools being left out. (In reality I believe Texas is moving towards just joining the ACC as is.)
That said, if a merger between Big 12 and ACC were to happen, I would like this:
West:
Texas
Texas Tech
OU
OSU
Kansas
Kansas State
Notre Dame
Georgia Tech
East:
UNC
NC State
Duke
Clemson
FSU
Miami
Virginia
Va. Tech
This plan has the advantage of keeping “little brothers” in the power 5 that would give political cover for moving the more valuable schools; the only true “legacy” school being dropped from the ACC would be Wake–easily accomplished.
LikeLike
Interesting but what are going to do with Pitt, Syracuse, BC etc…
LikeLike
Written like a true Texan. The ACC does not need the Big 12. Certainly the ACC would love to have Texas and OU. Then what? Would the ACC really rip itself apart to save the Big 12 schools?
“Dropping Wake Forest which has been in the ACC forever is easily accomplished”. You clearly feel that the school presidents in the ACC have no honor or morals. I think that you are projecting from how Big 12 schools might act to the potential behavior of other conference presidents.
Do you also believe the ACC will hand the entire Northeast over to the B1G by dumping BC, Cuse, and Pitt?
In addition to ethic issues and strategic considerations, I believe that Wake and the others must have some sort of contractual protection. These schools would each suffer damages in the many tens of millions of dollars by being “kicked out” of a P5 conference. The total for all schools involved would be hundreds of millions of dollars. Income per school could decrease by at least $20,000,000 per school per year.
LikeLike
Funny to hear someone talking about ACC ethics after what they did to the Big East. Every conference poached, but the ACC ripped the BE apart and left the rest to die.
Every school and conference are out for themselves. Anyone claiming higher moral ground is a delusional hypocrite.
LikeLike
“Every school and conference are out for themselves.”
That fairly well sums up why UT doesn’t belong in the B1G. Would they still be admitted if they came with no strings? Absolutely. But what a potential devisive headache.
LikeLike
I think every school is looking out for its best interests. However, I’d agree with the sentiment that Wake Forest getting kicked out of the ACC is not going to happen. There’s nothing “easy” about that situation. I also agree that the ACC would only want the same Big 12 schools that are also attractive to the Big Ten, SEC and Pac-12, namely Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. Everyone else in the Big 12 is completely at risk.
LikeLike
But some schools realize their best interest lies in sharing/adopting/contributing to the interest of a larger group.
And some don’t.
LikeLike
And the Big 10 started the whole mess by publically announcing they were going to be taking applicants from other conferences.
Is the Big 10 sharing its revenue with the MAC? Is it even sharing revenue with the ACC from whom it took Maryland?
Big 10 fans claiming the high moral ground are among the biggest hypocrites. The Big 10 doesn’t care what it does to other conferences or other FBS schools. It looks out for its own interests-just like everyone else.
What T. Boone said about Texas fits the Big 10 perfectly. Don’t remember the exact quote, but it was something to the effect that they are like an elephant walking in a china shop. They don’t have bad intentions, but they are an ELEPHANT walking in a china shop!!!
LikeLike
But some schools realize their best interest lies in sharing/adopting/contributing to the interest of a larger group.
And some don’t.
Nebraska and TAMU both backed unequal when they were in the Big XII (Texas A&M threatened to sue the conference if they didn’t get $20 million in their last year in the conference even if it meant forcing the “Forgotten Five” to waive their share of Colorado’s and Nebraska’s exit fees), but are doing fine in conferences in egalitarian conferences.
The ‘Huskers and Aggies didn’t suddenly get more altruistic; they just joined conferences where it made more sense to divide revenues equally because they were carrying less deadweight.
LikeLike
bullet,
“And the Big 10 started the whole mess by publically announcing they were going to be taking applicants from other conferences.”
Yep. But is that worse than doing it quietly?
“Is the Big 10 sharing its revenue with the MAC?”
On lots of Saturdays in the fall, yes.
“Is it even sharing revenue with the ACC from whom it took Maryland?”
Via one giant payment through UMD, yes. Did the ACC actually lose any revenue by replacing UMD with UL?
“The Big 10 doesn’t care what it does to other conferences or other FBS schools.”
I seem to recall some quotes that the B10 actually was being careful not to kill off another conference by taking too many schools, but I won’t swear to it.
“It looks out for its own interests-just like everyone else.”
Yep. But as a group they look out for each other as well.
LikeLike
Bullet,
Preposterous claims on your part. Conference expansion has far more history in the South and Southeast & these regions are ultimately the roots of the ACC’s most potent power structure – it’s till Carolina based. Look up the Southern Conference’s history. Look up the ACC and SEC as well – the additions and subtractions are far more frequent than the BIG.
LikeLike
Bullet,
Preposterous claims on your part as conference expansion has far more history & instability or evolution in the south and southeast compared to the BIG & the traditional Midwest. The south and southeast regions are ultimately the roots of the ACC’s most potent power structure – it’s still Carolina & southern based. Look up the Southern Conference’s history. Look up the ACC and SEC as well – the additions and subtractions are far more frequent than the BIG.
If you don’t want to go back to so-called ancient history, it was really Kramer’s move with Ark and SC to the SEC, thus setting up a conference championship game. This format set a trend and power base where the other conferences had to inevitably keep up – 12 teams is clearly the benchmark & partly led to the Big12’s issues in the inaugural CFP. The BIG got to 12 after the ACC, Big12 and SEC. Between the Pac12 and BIG, both reaching 12 teams at the same time, both conferences have expanded less than the ACC, SEC, & Big12, all of which came from previous, more volatile conference memberships (SWC, Big East, Southern Conference, and likely others).
And as Brian said, the ACC was sneaky, which is clearly worse than being transparent, this case.
LikeLike
Penn St. was invited to the Big 10 before Arkansas was invited to the SEC. They just took longer to transition. It was the PSU move that really got the SEC moving.
And it was the end of the TV monopoly that really changed the old conferences. The Big 10 and Pac 10 refused to participate in the CFA TV coalition. When Notre Dame left, it destroyed the CFA and it was then every conference for themselves. The Big 10 then split with the Pac 10 as well as did a separate TV deal.
LikeLike
“Is the Big 10 sharing its revenue with the MAC?”
Lessee, eastern division, OSUx2, MSUx2, PennStatex1, Marylandx1
western division, Whiskeyx1, Illinix1, Northwesternx1, Minnesotax2, Purduex1
… if that’s over $1m per buy game, that’s be over $10m of it. That’s more than the MAC will be earning from ESPN when the contract extension kicks in.
LikeLike
While earning $5 or $6 million themselves. And they complain endlessly about having to pay so much.
LikeLike
bullet,
Only the biggest schools earn that for a home game, and they don’t complain any more than other schools do nationally about the rising cost of paycheck games.
It’s also irrelevant to whether or not the B10 is sharing money with them. The B10 could make more by playing I-AA teams but has chosen to stop doing it.
LikeLike
Bullet,
You have no answers for the bulk of my counterarguments. Adding PSU did not bring the BIG to 12, plain and simple & the 11, as well as tradition, held the BIG back for so many years for many reasons, not just the awful BCS format. CF evolved into what it is now, a powerful P5, soon to be P4. I just can’t see Big12 operating like the former Pac10 did for too long.
The public announcement by the BIG to get to 12 was far more transparent than the way the SEC or ACC expanded and got to 12 before the BIG. The Big12 was created out of chaos galore, it was a matter of time before they’d fall apart – & frankly they are barely hanging on.
Bottom line, no expansion satisfies the traditionalists. But you’re nearly full scale delusional if you think the ACC’s several expansions, SEC as well, had ethics & to direct the type of blame you have framed on the BIG = absurd.
LikeLike
Everyone reacted to what the Big 10 did. They lead the rush to change. They were the first to leave their region with PSU.
As for the lack of a championship game, that was because they were waiting for Notre Dame.
You haven’t made any arguments, just tried to ignore that the Big 10’s moves were totally self-serving. You’re a homer blindly trying to put some sort of ethics on your conference’s self-serving moves. I’m not saying the Big 10 is any worse, but they certainly aren’t any better than anyone else, except maybe the MWC who went out of their way to damage the WAC-several times.
LikeLike
“Everyone reacted to what the Big 10 did.”
The B10 is the straw that stirs the drink.
LikeLike
It’s the Pac-8’s fault…or Oklahoma board, winning vs NCAA.
LikeLike
Everyone reacted to what the Big 10 did. They lead the rush to change. They were the first to leave their region with PSU.
After nearly having done just that half a century earlier, before pressure exerted on Michigan and others led the Big Ten to take in Michigan State rather than Pittsburgh as its 10th member once the University of Chicago exited big-time athletics for good.
LikeLike
I agree, Tranghese and the incompetence of Big East leadership was a fatal problem. In the same sense that people now say that the center of the ACC is in North Carolina, the center of the Big East was Providence, RI. Throughout time, the BE was a basketball conf with football playing members. The failure of the eastern teams to establish a football league ultimately resulted in a split of the “eastern teams” among the B1G and ACC.
None of that makes me feel differently about the Miami and BC split from the BE. (VaTech had good reason to go south and had no choice once the opportunity was made available). Ignoring the despicable liar, Donna Shalala, U Miami in the ACC (or SEC) at least made geographic sense. The BC move never made sense to me and honestly, still does not. Admittedly, if one could read the future, and know that the BE would fall apart, the only lifeboat for BC was the ACC, so they were on board before the BE exploded.
Before the UM, BC, VaTech desertion, I do not agree that the ACC was a better football conf. FSU has been king for a long time, but that by itself did not elevate the ACC enough
As far as the B1G taking Penn State, that was not exactly an out of area addition. Penn State is not that far away from the mid West. In addition, taking independent PSU was not breaking up a conference.
Most importantly, there has always been a huge difference between a conference forcing out teams and taking teams from another conference. I may be wrong, but I believe that the only instance of a “major” conference kicking a team out was the BE and Temple. In that instance Temple was required to upgrade facilities (which were really subpar) and given time to do so. Temple did not act and was asked to leave the conference.
Notwithstanding Texas fan based wishing and dreaming, the ACC will never kick out an original school, Wake Forest, or drop Louisville and the northeastern schools to save the Big 12.
As much as I may not have liked the ACC raid on the BE, going after schools in other conferences is very different than throwing out existing members to make room for others.
Schools and conferences are entitled to look out for their long term best interests, and they do.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“I agree, Tranghese and the incompetence of Big East leadership was a fatal problem. In the same sense that people now say that the center of the ACC is in North Carolina, the center of the Big East was Providence, RI. Throughout time, the BE was a basketball conf with football playing members. The failure of the eastern teams to establish a football league ultimately resulted in a split of the “eastern teams” among the B1G and ACC.”
The BE leaders never foresaw the growth in football TV money. MBB is king in the northeast and they thought that was sufficient. They were wrong. Letting Providence be the power center was always a bad idea. At least have it be one of your best programs.
“None of that makes me feel differently about the Miami and BC split from the BE. (VaTech had good reason to go south and had no choice once the opportunity was made available). Ignoring the despicable liar, Donna Shalala, U Miami in the ACC (or SEC) at least made geographic sense. The BC move never made sense to me and honestly, still does not. Admittedly, if one could read the future, and know that the BE would fall apart, the only lifeboat for BC was the ACC, so they were on board before the BE exploded.”
1. The ACC announced they were looking to expand from 9 to 12 and get a CCG, so it wasn’t a sneak attack.
2. Miami and VT moved before BC did. As you noted, both had reasons to go.
3. With Miami and VT gone, the ACC was clearly the better conference so maybe BC did see it coming.
4. And from the ACC’s point of view, BC was a way to expand the footprint like the B10 did with UMD/RU.
“Before the UM, BC, VaTech desertion, I do not agree that the ACC was a better football conf. FSU has been king for a long time, but that by itself did not elevate the ACC enough”
They didn’t leave at the same time, so let’s evaluate this in 2 phases:
Miami and VT:
BE – BC, RU, SU, Temple, Pitt, WV, VT, Miami
ACC – UMD, UVA, Duke, UNC, NCSU, WF, Clemson, GT, FSU
Let’s look at W% from 1983-2002 and make tiers:
Over 82% – FSU/Miami
59-66% – Clemson, UVA/SU, VT, WV
46-55% – UNC, NCSU, GT, UMD/BC, Pitt
26-39% – WF, Duke/RU, Temple
That looks fairly even, but it includes Miami and VT. If you pull Miami and VT out (they can’t consider their own strength when comparing destinations), then the ACC was clearly better than the remainder of the BE.
Miami knew the ACC would be stronger if they moved plus they got their biggest rival in conference (frees up an OOC game). The same is true for VT.
After Miami and VT had already moved, it was no contest when BC compared the two.
LikeLike
Believe me, I think that what the ACC did with the Big East was disgusting, underhanded, etc. Similarly when Donna Shalala was president of the U of Miami, she openly thanked the Big East for rescuing Miami from sports purgatory. Then a year or so later, she dropped the Big East with no sense of obligation whatsoever, and convinced BC to come with Miami to the ACC. To me the strange thing about that was that before Miami, BC and VaTech left, the Big East was probably a better football conference than the ACC.
Attacking and destroying another conference is quite different than turning on schools within the ACC. Wake adds nothing to the ACC. It is by far the number four school in N Carolina, by virtually every metric. Despite this, Wake will not be thrown out.
Neither will the other four schools.
Personally, I would be very happy to see Cuse, Pitt and BC off in the Netherlands and out of the P5. That would leave RU and Penn State as the only two P5 schools, Throw in Maryland if you want to call them northeastern. (I call MD a mid Atlantic state and not northeastern)
The ACC powers that be have spend many years solidifying their hold in the northeast. They are not just leaving.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jersey Bernie,
“Then a year or so later, she dropped the Big East with no sense of obligation whatsoever, and convinced BC to come with Miami to the ACC. To me the strange thing about that was that before Miami, BC and VaTech left, the Big East was probably a better football conference than the ACC.”
But the ACC had more prominent football-first schools, including Miami’s main rival. More importantly, it was a step up academically and that was very important to Shalala. And as fate would have it, they are back to playing their old BE mates in football anyway.
LikeLike
Bernie, things conceivably could have gone in the opposite direction if Tranghese had been more aggressive. Clemson, Georgia Tech and Florida State — all somewhat miffed at the lack of a football-first culture from the North Carolina four, Virginia and to a lesser extent Maryland — could have been picked off by the Big East in the early 2000s to join Miami, Virginia Tech, SU, BC, Pitt, WVU, Rutgers and Temple for 11 football members. Add Connecticut, on the verge of going I-A, and you have 12 members and a CCG. That would have shrunk the ACC to six members, and its future, not the Big East’s, would have been in jeopardy. Perhaps it would have replenished with Louisville, Cincinnati and one or two of the directional Florida schools, just as the Big East did after BC, VT and Miami switched leagues, but it would be the poor sister on the Eastern Seaboard.
In the changing landscape of larger leagues, only one of the two conferences with members on the east coast could survive…and to the surprise of few, it was the ACC — not the less-established motley mix that was the Big East — which won the “eat or be eaten” war. Had Tranghese sought out the southern flank of the ACC instead of focusing on the needs of Seton Hall, Providence et al, his conference might have been the big winner.
LikeLike
Tyson,
Welcome.
“That said, if a merger between Big 12 and ACC were to happen, I would like this:
West:
Texas
Texas Tech
OU
OSU
Kansas
Kansas State
Notre Dame
Georgia Tech
East:
UNC
NC State
Duke
Clemson
FSU
Miami
Virginia
Va. Tech”
I understand you are expressing your wishes, not claiming this would be the logical result but it brings up several questions.
1. Why would the ACC drop 5 schools (BC, SU, Pitt, UL, WF) that leave the entire northeast open? Why wouldn’t it be more like the Big 8 adding part of the SWC?
2. Why would ND decide to join fully?
3. Why would ND or GT agree to be in the B12 division? ND wants to play on the east coast and GT wants to play its neighbors.
To me, the ACC adding just UT, TT, OU and OkSU would make more sense.
“This plan has the advantage of keeping “little brothers” in the power 5 that would give political cover for moving the more valuable schools; the only true “legacy” school being dropped from the ACC would be Wake–easily accomplished.”
It gives cover to OU, KU and UT but at the expense of several other schools. I think the politicians in those other states would fight back.
LikeLike
I’ll respond to you Brian, and hopefully address some of the other comments that were made in response to my post. Why would the ACC drop 5 schools? Because it would make them stronger. The indignation of posters who view such potential moves as somehow “immoral” notwithstanding, can anyone argue that the conference scenario I outlined wouldn’t be certainly on a par ( and perhaps better) academically AND athletically with the Big 10, PAC 12, and SEC? An did it escape everybody’s notice that I was suggesting a merger, one that would require the Big 12 to jettison 4 schools? And the benefit to the ACC is a clear commitment to improvement in football (the acknowledged driver of realignment) by adding two of the most storied programs in college football. In exchange they release schools in the northeast that absolutely DO NOT translate into interest in those areas in any meaningful way…ie BC and Syracuse do not have passionate fans that drive ratings in their home area. Pitt probably does to a somewhat greater extent, but you get my point. And living here in the heart of the ACC in Raleigh, I can tell you unequivocally that the addition of the NE teams and subsequently Louisville were purely defensive moves and nobody here gives a rats arse about those schools. Adding true football bluebloods would be a tremendous boost for the ACC, not to mention the additional benefits to other sports. I believe an ACC thus constituted would be un-poachable. Again, I believe providing political cover for the marquee teams is critical, and the political pull of the private schools is just not as significant (Baylor TCU and Wake); and in the end, what political pull would Iowa St and WVa be able to exert? The West /East alignment allows for some geographic proximity for each division as well
LikeLike
Tyson,
“I’ll respond to you Brian, and hopefully address some of the other comments that were made in response to my post.”
Gotcha.
“Why would the ACC drop 5 schools? Because it would make them stronger.”
Losing the entire northeast makes them stronger? Boston, NYC, out state NY, Pittsburgh, etc don’t matter to them? I see the upside in adding TX, obviously, but OK and KS are both small states.
“The indignation of posters who view such potential moves as somehow “immoral” notwithstanding, can anyone argue that the conference scenario I outlined wouldn’t be certainly on a par ( and perhaps better) academically AND athletically with the Big 10, PAC 12, and SEC?”
No conference that adds TT, KSU and OkSU while dropping BC, SU, Pitt and WF is on par with the B10 academically. You could argue that the current ACC is on par or better for undergrads with the B10 being clearly better for grad students. Your changes would drop the ACC clearly behind the B10.
I didn’t make any moral arguments, but I would worry about the chemistry of a conference that dropped 5 current members (including a founding school) to add 6 new ones 1000 miles away. That presages unrest and infighting to me.
“An did it escape everybody’s notice that I was suggesting a merger, one that would require the Big 12 to jettison 4 schools?”
Usually the stronger group absorbs the weaker one, it doesn’t merge equally. Do you not see the ACC as in the stronger position in this scenario?
“And the benefit to the ACC is a clear commitment to improvement in football (the acknowledged driver of realignment) by adding two of the most storied programs in college football.”
At the expense of academics, rivalries, loss of footprint and the addition of a lot of long travel for all sports.
“In exchange they release schools in the northeast that absolutely DO NOT translate into interest in those areas in any meaningful way…ie BC and Syracuse do not have passionate fans that drive ratings in their home area.”
How much value would the ACCN lose if the northeast isn’t in the footprint? As long as the LHN exists, it’s a problem for the ACCN, too.
“And living here in the heart of the ACC in Raleigh, I can tell you unequivocally that the addition of the NE teams and subsequently Louisville were purely defensive moves and nobody here gives a rats arse about those schools.”
Of course they don’t, just like B10 fans don’t care about UMD and RU. It’ll take time for any feelings to develop about them. But those schools add important hoops games for the ACC and fans do care about that. Do you think ACC fans are going to care about OkSU or TT or KSU in any sport? Will they care about anything other than KU hoops and good years in UT and OU football?
“I believe an ACC thus constituted would be un-poachable.”
I think it’d be more likely to crumble from within than be poached, so I guess I agree.
“The West /East alignment allows for some geographic proximity for each division as well”
Tell that to ND and GT. Do you really want to anger ND to add UT, OU and KU?
LikeLike
Brian– do you believe that the Mountain West Conference had a significant viewership in Texas when TCU was in that conference? I can tell you, they did not. In the same way you can talk about “footprint” all you want, but BC and Syracuse do not deliver their respective markets in any meaningful way, whereas the schools in Oklahoma and Kansas deliver their ENTIRE states and nearby areas as well ( probably as many KU fans in Missouri as Tiger fans). It’s fine to talk footprint, but everyone knows what has made the SEC such a powerhouse is not their footprint per se, as much as the passion, ie percentage of the population that actually cares about the member schools
LikeLike
Tyson,
“Brian– do you believe that the Mountain West Conference had a significant viewership in Texas when TCU was in that conference?”
I don’t think they had significant viewership much of anywhere except maybe Utah and then Idaho.
“In the same way you can talk about “footprint” all you want, but BC and Syracuse do not deliver their respective markets in any meaningful way, whereas the schools in Oklahoma and Kansas deliver their ENTIRE states and nearby areas as well ( probably as many KU fans in Missouri as Tiger fans).”
You’re taking 4 schools to bring in OU football fans and KU hoops fans. SU brings just as many hoops fans as KU plus is a regional fit. The northeastern schools don’t need to bring a large percentage of the residents in to equal the 3.9M people in all of OK considering the 4 dropped states have over 43M residents combined.
I can see wanting UT and OU, but KU makes no sense if it requires KSU, too.
“It’s fine to talk footprint, but everyone knows what has made the SEC such a powerhouse is not their footprint per se, as much as the passion, ie percentage of the population that actually cares about the member schools”
And yet they refuse to add a second school in a state because it’s a waste and they looked to add TX and ignored WV. They’re also looking at NC and VA, because a populated footprint matters to TV networks.
LikeLike
A merger of the most powerful schools left in the B12 and ACC to form a new conference could happen since that will get around the exit fees; however, it has to have a trigger. If ACC money has fallen so far behind the B1G and SEC when the GoR expires that NC decides to leave that would destabilize the ACC. If NC leaves, VA, VT, and Duke will not be far behind. Notre Dame may keep its current arrangement, but it will not be joining a weakened ACC as a full football member. So at most 5 of the ACC schools you picked would be around for the merged conference. Pitt, Syracuse, and probably WV will be needed just to make the numbers. Adding OU, KU, and TT makes 11. TX would be 12 except I think it will demand the same scheduling deal as Notre Dame. That would leave one of oSu, Louisville, Baylor, Boston College, or TCU to round it out to 12. When the most powerful schools in this mix (FSU, OU) start discussing TV contracts they will find what the B12 did, they will get closer $$$ to the B1G and SEC by limiting the dead weight, so the conference will be worth more per member if they stay at 12.
Now if NC decides to stay put and accept fewer $$$ than there is no possibility of a merger. Frank knows that the B1G would rather pick up NC and VA (vs OU/KU) if they are available. The top targets for the SEC are also NC, VA, and/or VT. So these schools will have the opportunity to leave the ACC. Duke, NCSU, and GT are less likely but at least one of these schools should get an invite if NC and VA leave. The only P5 conference that will take FSU, Clemson, Pitt, Miami, Louisville, or Syracuse is the B12, so in effect these schools have no where to go. Even the B12 is not interested in Boston College or Wake Forest.
LikeLike
With the ACC contract at 2027 and the Big 12 at 2024, such a thing would be difficult in the age of GORs.
LikeLike
Its interesting given where the BE and ACC were in 2003 how the merger of the best of the BE and the ACC has resulted in a conference that has become relatively weaker, both financially and competitively. Rather than perhaps the strongest, they became the weakest except for basketball.
LikeLike
Its interesting given where the BE and ACC were in 2003 how the merger of the best of the BE and the ACC has resulted in a conference that has become relatively weaker, both financially and competitively. Rather than perhaps the strongest, they became the weakest except for basketball.
The ACC is unquestionably stronger today than either league would’ve been separately, assuming both had survived, each with its 2003 complement of schools. There aren’t enough football schools along the Eastern seaboard to stock 2½ power conferences (the “half” corresponding to the SEC’s coastal schools: Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina).
I am amazed at the people who think the ACC did something underhanded. Conferences are competitors. The Big East was not a long-term sustainable proposition. You could not expect its stronger members to stick around and wait for it to die gradually; and you could not expect a conference like the ACC, with myriad problems of its own, to pass on opportunities to ensure its own survival.
And it’s not as if the basketball-dominated leadership of the Big East was entirely innocent in this. They severely mismanaged what they had, and the free market penalized them for their folly, as markets are wont to do.
LikeLike
Tyson,
First, I agree with you that the Big 12 in its present form is unlikely to be viable in the long term; furthermore, I think that while the ACC currently seems to have a more stable future than the B12 thanks to both a grant of rights ending three years later than the B12’s and a more egalitarian distribution of television revenue than what the B12 has, the post-GoR ACC’s fate is questionable too. Second, I share your belief that “little sibling” schools absolutely must be taken into account in any realignment involving the B12’s apparently most attractive members; I hold that opinion also with regard to any realignment that would include the ACC’s supposedly most coveted schools. Third, I, like you, see plenty of potential in some form of coalition of schools from the ACC and the B12; I think that a tie-up of schools from those two conferences would be more practical — and, in fact, might be [i]far[/i] more practical — than, say, the Big Ten, the Pac-12, and the SEC carving apart the B12 the way that Russia, Prussia, and Austria partitioned Poland throughout the latter half of the eighteenth century and/or the B1G and the SEC cutting the ACC into two as Vyacheslav Molotov and Joachim von Ribbentrop did to Poland in 1939.
However, I strongly disagree with you about whether any school in either the ACC or the B12 (let alone five ACC schools and four B12 schools) should, or even can, be excluded from any plan that brings those conferences closer together. For starters, I think that you are underestimating the clout of private schools in either league; the fact that Baptist-affiliated Baylor became one of the four original Texas members of the B12 while Houston is the only public school from the old Southwest Conference that has yet to join any current Power Five league should be proof enough that private schools can have as much pull politically as do their public brethren with regard to conference realignment. On top of that, even if public colleges and universities [i]do[/i] have a clear political edge over their private peers, your plan would leave four public schools — Iowa State, Louisville, Pitt, and West Virginia — out in the cold; as each of those schools is in a different state, I am concerned that your proposal poses an unusually high risk of becoming subject to some means of interference at the federal level of government, as opposed to the prospects of nothing more than state-level political interventions in past realignments. Finally, Boston College, Pitt, and Syracuse make up for their alleged individual and collective dearths of passionate fans with locations in states that have not only more residents individually than what the states of Kansas and Oklahoma have together (e.g. the population of Massachusetts alone is large enough for ten United States House of Representatives districts — one more than the amount of such districts in Kansas and Oklahoma combined), but also, to the best of my knowledge, higher per-capita incomes than in Kansas or especially Oklahoma.
How, then, could ACC and B12 schools be brought together in a manner that does not forsake any member of either conference? It could be a loose financial and/or scheduling alliance between those leagues. It could be a full merger that would create a league with twenty-four football teams (assuming that Notre Dame stays independent in that sport). It could be even my preferred — and, admittedly, very radical — idea of an outright replacement of the ACC and the B12 with two new conferences.
[b]Scenario #1[/b]
[u]Conference A[/u]
[i]All-sports:[/i] Boston College, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
[i]Non-football:[/i] Notre Dame
[u]Conference B[/u]
[i]East:[/i] Clemson, Duke, Miami, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
[i]West:[/i] Baylor, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech
[b]Scenario #2[/b]
[u]Conference A[/u]
[i]All-sports:[/i] Boston College, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
[i]Non-football:[/i] Notre Dame
[u]Conference B[/u]
[i]East:[/i] Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
[i]West:[/i] Baylor, Florida State, Miami, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech
[b]Scenario #3[/b]
[u]Conference A[/u]
[i]All-sports:[/i] Boston College, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
[i]Non-football:[/i] Notre Dame
[u]Conference B[/u]
[i]East:[/i] Duke, Florida State, Miami, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
[i]West:[/i] Baylor, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech
[b]Scenario #4[/b]
[u]Conference A[/u]
[i]All-sports:[/i] Boston College, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
[i]Non-football:[/i] Notre Dame
[u]Conference B[/u]
[i]East:[/i] Clemson, Duke, Florida State, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
[i]West:[/i] Baylor, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech
[b]Scenario #5[/b]
[u]Conference A[/u]
[i]All-sports:[/i] Boston College, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
[i]Non-football:[/i] Notre Dame
[u]Conference B[/u]
[i]East:[/i] Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
[i]West:[/i] Baylor, Florida State, Louisville, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech
[b]Scenario #6[/b]
[u]Conference A[/u]
[i]All-sports:[/i] Boston College, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
[i]Non-football:[/i] Notre Dame
[u]Conference B[/u]
[i]East:[/i] Clemson, Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
[i]West:[/i] Baylor, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech
LikeLike
Dr. Frankenconference,
You need to use to get the HTML to work, not [tag].
Like this:
Tyson,
First, I agree with you that the Big 12 in its present form is unlikely to be viable in the long term; furthermore, I think that while the ACC currently seems to have a more stable future than the B12 thanks to both a grant of rights ending three years later than the B12’s and a more egalitarian distribution of television revenue than what the B12 has, the post-GoR ACC’s fate is questionable too. Second, I share your belief that “little sibling” schools absolutely must be taken into account in any realignment involving the B12’s apparently most attractive members; I hold that opinion also with regard to any realignment that would include the ACC’s supposedly most coveted schools. Third, I, like you, see plenty of potential in some form of coalition of schools from the ACC and the B12; I think that a tie-up of schools from those two conferences would be more practical — and, in fact, might be far more practical — than, say, the Big Ten, the Pac-12, and the SEC carving apart the B12 the way that Russia, Prussia, and Austria partitioned Poland throughout the latter half of the eighteenth century and/or the B1G and the SEC cutting the ACC into two as Vyacheslav Molotov and Joachim von Ribbentrop did to Poland in 1939.
However, I strongly disagree with you about whether any school in either the ACC or the B12 (let alone five ACC schools and four B12 schools) should, or even can, be excluded from any plan that brings those conferences closer together. For starters, I think that you are underestimating the clout of private schools in either league; the fact that Baptist-affiliated Baylor became one of the four original Texas members of the B12 while Houston is the only public school from the old Southwest Conference that has yet to join any current Power Five league should be proof enough that private schools can have as much pull politically as do their public brethren with regard to conference realignment. On top of that, even if public colleges and universities do have a clear political edge over their private peers, your plan would leave four public schools — Iowa State, Louisville, Pitt, and West Virginia — out in the cold; as each of those schools is in a different state, I am concerned that your proposal poses an unusually high risk of becoming subject to some means of interference at the federal level of government, as opposed to the prospects of nothing more than state-level political interventions in past realignments. Finally, Boston College, Pitt, and Syracuse make up for their alleged individual and collective dearths of passionate fans with locations in states that have not only more residents individually than what the states of Kansas and Oklahoma have together (e.g. the population of Massachusetts alone is large enough for ten United States House of Representatives districts — one more than the amount of such districts in Kansas and Oklahoma combined), but also, to the best of my knowledge, higher per-capita incomes than in Kansas or especially Oklahoma.
How, then, could ACC and B12 schools be brought together in a manner that does not forsake any member of either conference? It could be a loose financial and/or scheduling alliance between those leagues. It could be a full merger that would create a league with twenty-four football teams (assuming that Notre Dame stays independent in that sport). It could be even my preferred — and, admittedly, very radical — idea of an outright replacement of the ACC and the B12 with two new conferences.
Scenario #1
Conference A
All-sports: Boston College, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Non-football: Notre Dame
Conference B
East: Clemson, Duke, Miami, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
West: Baylor, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech
Scenario #2
Conference A
All-sports: Boston College, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Non-football: Notre Dame
Conference B
East: Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
West: Baylor, Florida State, Miami, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech
Scenario #3
Conference A
All-sports: Boston College, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Non-football: Notre Dame
Conference B
East: Duke, Florida State, Miami, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
West: Baylor, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech
Scenario #4
Conference A
All-sports: Boston College, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Non-football: Notre Dame
Conference B
East: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
West: Baylor, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech
Scenario #5
Conference A
All-sports: Boston College, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Non-football: Notre Dame
Conference B
East: Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
West: Baylor, Florida State, Louisville, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech
Scenario #6
Conference A
All-sports: Boston College, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Non-football: Notre Dame
Conference B
East: Clemson, Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
West: Baylor, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech
LikeLike
Brian,
Thank you for showing me how it works these days. To be honest, the very first time that I commented on any of Frank’s blog posts (more than two years ago), I actually tried to use HTML instead of UBB, but, ironically, the HTML code did not work for me back then.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13412857/eight-steps-rehabbing-big-12-image
An 8 step guide for the B12 to rehab its image:
1. Win important OOC games (UT @ ND, OU @ TN and TT @ AR this year)
2. Schedule tougher OOC (not talking about UT and OU)
3. Showcase TCU-Baylor like they do the RR and Bedlam
4. Schedule smarter on CCG Saturday (3 of the top 4 teams have a bye week)
5. Get UT and OU back to normal
6. Add a CCG
7. Expand with BYU and Boise
8. Win a NC
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/101923/parity-postseason-woes-handcuff-the-big-12
Parity and a poor bowl record are what’s hurting the B12 currently according to this reporter.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13409418/tcu-baylor-fading-allure-college-football-rivalries
People at Baylor (HC, AD) feel that CFB rivalries are obsolete and no longer really matter.
“Well, I don’t want to use the words ‘not necessary,'” Bears head coach Art Briles said. “I just think the game’s OK without ’em.”
…
And he [Baylor’s AD McCaw], like Briles, believes that rivalries, the lifeblood of college football, the passion that fuels the sport, are obsolete.
“I think in our case,” McCaw said, “people are looking at, who are the teams that we are going to need to beat to win a championship? That’s going to define the rivalries. If the No. 1-ranked team in the nation right now was Iowa State, our fans would be clamoring to get tickets for the Iowa State game.”
The Big 12 is lacking rivalries these days. There is Texas-Oklahoma. There is Oklahoma-Oklahoma State. And there isn’t much else. Kansas-Missouri is gone, as well as Oklahoma-Nebraska. Texas, sniffle, Texas A&M.
In their place is, well, maybe, could be, TCU and Baylor.
…
“I think we have lost something, in that sense,” McCaw said. “I think we’ve lost some of the passion for the rivalries and maybe conference realignment has been a part of that.”
We are entering Year 24 of the Realignment Era, and the list of dead rivalries isn’t limited to the Big 12: Arkansas-Texas, Utah-BYU, Pitt-West Virginia, Pitt-Penn State, Notre Dame-Michigan.
I think this is part of what hurts the B12, and CFB in general. Rivalries are based on the passion of the fans, and that’s never obsolete. Too many decision are being made for money while ignoring the fans and then they wonder why attendance is lagging.
LikeLike
Rivalries are what keep fans caring in November, regardless of record.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13381570/college-football-playoff-committee-members-had-some-help-stats
A look at some of the behind-the-scenes help the CFP committee members got from staff members crunching data for them.
LikeLike
Mississippi St. is a lousy example. They were 10-3, but didn’t show much against the best teams. They beat Southern Miss (3-9), UAB (6-6), TN Martin, Vanderbilt (3-9), Arkansas (7-6), A&M (8-5) and Auburn (8-5) at home. They beat Kentucky (5-7), South Alabama (6-7) and LSU (8-5) on the road. They lost to Alabama (12-2) and Ole Miss (9-4) on the road and Georgia Tech (11-3) in the bowl.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13415712/a-guide-college-football-playoff-terms-know-going-year-2
A humorous piece about important terms for the CFP. Example:
Eye test
You know the eye in the middle of LSU’s field? If you’ve played on that eye, you get moved up in the rankings four spots.
Example: Mississippi State, above.
LikeLike
The times and TV details are set for the B10/ACC Challenge:
Monday, Nov. 30
Wake Forest at Rutgers, 7 p.m. (ESPNU)
Clemson at Minnesota, 9 p.m. (ESPN2)
Tuesday, Dec. 1
Michigan at NC State (7 p.m., ESPN2)
Northwestern at Virginia Tech (7 p.m., ESPNU)
Virginia at Ohio State (7:30 p.m., ESPN)
Miami at Nebraska (9 p.m., ESPNU)
Purdue at Pittsburgh (9 p.m., ESPN2)
Maryland at North Carolina (9:30 p.m., ESPN)
Wednesday, Dec. 2
Louisville at Michigan State (7:15 p.m., ESPN)
Wisconsin at Syracuse (7:15 p.m., ESPN2)
Penn State at Boston College (7:15 p.m., ESPNU)
Indiana at Duke (9:15 p.m., ESPN)
Notre Dame at Illinois (9:15 p.m., ESPN2)
Florida State at Iowa (9:15 p.m., ESPNU)
All times are ET
LikeLike
The rolling Black Tuesday of cord cutting continues:
Cord cutting is accelerating with the pay TV industry losing 566,000 subscribers last quarter alone. With DirecTV alone losing 133,000 subscribers last quarter, MoffettNathanson notes it was the worst second quarter net loss in history for the nation’s legacy TV industry. The 566,000 subscriber loss comes on the heels of a 321,000 subscriber net loss the quarter before.
Wonder if the B1G might consider a shorter (astronomical) 5 year contract. With Fox as a 51% partner, and streaming the wave of the future it won’t be too long before they could go it alone.
LikeLike
I wonder if cable subscriptions will become more seasonal. A lot of people only need ESPN (and thus cable) during football season.
LikeLike
That’s why ESPN is screwed if things move away from the current model. If TV moves to a subscription basis, ESPN needs 20% of US households to pay them more than $15 a month, for all 12 months, just to cover what they owe the NFL and NBA for their contracts. They need that same 20% to pay almost $35 a month to match current revenue.
They MIGHT get that 20% to sign up for that number during football season, they have no chance of that happening from Feb to August.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25266277/study-ex-nfl-players-who-started-football-younger-are-more-at-risk
An important new concussion study is out.
Former NFL players who began playing tackle football before the age of 12 had a higher risk of altered brain development compared to those who started playing at a later age, according to a new study released Tuesday.
Researchers at the Boston University School of Medicine said the study is the first to demonstrate a link between early exposure to repetitive head impacts and structural brain changes later in life. The results will likely raise further questions regarding at what age kids should start playing tackle football.
According to the Boston University researchers, there is growing evidence that a “critical window” of brain development exists between ages 10 and 12, when the brain may be especially susceptible to injury. While the study shows kids may be more susceptible to repeated head impacts during this window, researchers cautioned that their sample size was small, participants played youth football in a different era than today’s era with more knowledge about head trauma, and the results can’t be generalized to people who did not play pro football.
…
Researchers, led by Julie Stamm, examined 40 ex-NFL players between the ages of 40 and 65 who played more than 12 years of organized football and at least two years in the NFL. Half of the players participated in tackle football before 12 and half began at 12 or later. All of the players had a similar number of concussions reported and had experienced at least six months of worsening memory and cognitive problems.
I think this sort of work will lead to the continued growth of flag football for youth. They can learn many of the valuable skills and life lessons without playing tackle. You’ll probably see 7 on 7s grow, too, so OL and DL don’t have to crack heads all the time.
LikeLike
I don’t see why you need organized tackle football at that age.
Kids playing unsupervised with friends is probably safer than the organized leagues with different size players and it all taken more seriously.
7th grade is early enough. Maybe even 8th.
LikeLike
You certainly don’t need soccer and its headers, either.
LikeLike
http://www.sportslegacy.org/policy/safer-soccer/
There is a movement to eliminate headers from youth soccer (generally for those under 14) called the Safer Soccer campaign.
* Attempting to head the ball and colliding or falling is by far the #1 risk of concussions in youth soccer, causing more than 30,000 concussions each year.
* Heading accounts for nearly 1/3 of concussions in youth soccer.
* Safer Soccer has widespread support among U.S. Soccer legends, who believe that this safety measure will also create more skilled players.
I’m surprised it only accounts for 1/3 of the concussions. I’m guessing jump balls do most of the rest (accidental head butts and elbows to the head).
LikeLike
Again the more “urban” schools (e.g. Mount Carmel, DeLaSalle, Leo from before ’91) of th Chicago Catholic League would be another good observation group. You have a lot of the kids who did organized football in a suburban park district league or in the Southwest (Elementary, e.g. Barnabus, Christina, John Fisher, Christ the King) Conference) on the same squad as “raw” talent who may have came from an elementary that didnt play football.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2015/08/11/football-four-podcast-bill-hancock-college-football-playoff-director/31447913/
A podcast with Bill Hancock as the guest. He talks about wht the CFP is 4 teams and the choice to play semifinals on NYE.
LikeLike
Interesting comments by Houston’s president:
http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2015/08/khator-next-2-years-are-very-important-to-uh/
“University of Houston president Renu Khator said Monday night that the next two years are ‘very, very important,’ presumably a reference to the school’s hopes for inclusion in a Power 5 conference during the next round of conference realignment.
“We have a short window of probably two years,” Khator told a record crowd of supporters at the Cougar Pride Kickoff Dinner at the Athletic/Alumni Center. “The next two years are very, very important to us. What you do in these two years, that’s what the nation is going to see. That is what’s going to open the doors for us.”
Khator said the university has made strides academically but that UH can “only come this far” without becoming a nationally competitive athletics program.
“Without that, I don’t think we can move the university any farther,” Khator said. “So it’s very important.”
She ended her remarks by saying: “Let the country see who we are.””….
LikeLike
The quote that surprised me was
“Hunter Yurachek, UH’s vice president for intercollegiate athletics, said there are 160,000 UH alums living within one hour of campus. Only 2.5 percent, or 4,000, buy season tickets, Yurachek said.”
4k would be Rice alumni level season ticket sales.
LikeLike
Wow, that is kind of shocking. Is UH a commuter school? That would explain it.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jerry-palm/25267298/2015-bowl-projections-sec-big-12-and-acc-in-pac-12-out-of-playoff
Jerry Palm predicts the postseason:
Orange – #1 OSU vs #4 Clemson
Cotton – #2 TCU vs #3 Auburn
Shouldn’t OSU get the Cotton Bowl in that scenario so Clemson doesn’t get the home field advantage? Dallas would be a neutral site for them, Miami not so much. Or is letting TCU play at home so attractive that they can’t say no to it?
He sees the top teams in the P12 beating each other up, but goes on to say the same could happen to the SEC or ACC. He also discusses the possibility of 2 teams from 1 conference making it.
Next are the other NY6 bowls:
The bowls that get the most attention are those filled by the selection committee, which this year will be the Rose, Sugar, Peach and Fiesta. The Rose gets the highest rated Big Ten and Pac-12 teams not in the playoff. The same is true for the Sugar with the SEC and Big 12. The three highest-rated teams remaining from any league, plus the highest-rated team from the Group of Five conferences will fill the other two games.
Rose – WI vs OR
Sugar – Baylor vs AL
Peach – FSU vs MSU
Fiesta – USC vs Boise
I think MSU is likely to be higher rated than WI and will get the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
Speaking of Geeks, Freaks & Stoner Ideas:
A caveat is needed for another post of mine about scheduling B1G@16 with two divisions:
(a) Schedule three division schools every year,
(b) Schedule the remaining division schools 10 times over a 12-year period,
(c) Schedule the non-division schools once every three years.
For this concept, tier (b) schools would schedule six years on, one year off, four years on, one year off, according to a 12-year cycle. Every division school would also play the same number of division games. For example:
Y01, Y04, etc: seven division schools, two non-division schools
Y02, Y03, Y05, Y06, etc: six division schools, three non-division schools
Ideally, all schools would play all other schools as rotating home and away games.
Furthermore, for those years Y02, Y03, Y05, Y06, etc, all schools would have 3H/3A schedules for their 6-game division schedules.
However, this concept has four schools of each division having 6-game division schedules rotating as a 4H/2A schedule, followed by a 2H/4A schedule (or 2H/4A followed by 4H/2A). Such 6-game division schedules occur four times in the 12-year cycle for these schools (for example, Y02 & Y03 and Y08 & Y09). Whereas the other four division schools always have 3A/3H 6-game division schedules.
One way to fix this flaw is to modify the concept as follows:
(a) Schedule four division schools every year,
(b) Schedule the remaining three division schools 14 times over an 18-year period,
(c) Schedule the non-division schools once every three years.
For this concept, tier (b) schools would schedule four years on, one year off, three years on, one year off, over an 18-year cycle.
Such games would be scheduled by sorting schools of each division into two pods of four schools each. The four schools of one division-pod would lock with each other, then lock with one school of the other division-pod, and then rotate with the other three schools of the other division-pod. This rotation would be four years on, one year off, three years on, one year off, etc. Then all schools would always have 3A/3H 6-game division schedules for those years Y02, Y03, Y05, Y06, etc.
Before 2011, every Big Ten school scheduled two permanent rivals annually. They then played the other conference schools six times over an 8-year period giving a frequency of 75%.
For the above, when reducing tier (b) games from: 10 times every 12 years; to 14 times every 18 years; the frequency is reduced from 83% to 77%. The latter is still greater than 75%. In absolute terms, the amount of rotating division schools is reduced from 15 games to 14 games during an 18-year period. This loss of one game during the 18-year period is moderately negligible.
Of course, this assumes that the Conference Championship Game Rule would change, and that acceptable tie-breaker rules are established, in which case almost anything is possible.
LikeLike
All of which makes the 10 team conference seem like a good idea, and the B12 look like geniuses. A nine game round robin plus four OOC games. Perfect.
Plus, if you get rid of the CCG, you can easily expand the playoffs to 8 teams without making the final champion and runner up play 16 or 17 or 18 games. Seventeen or even 18 games is almost inevitable once you have a conference playoff among the best 4 teams.
By the way, the best year for football fanatics was 1970, when Texas, Nebraska and Ohio State were all pronounce national champion by one organization or another. The only thing people get to talk about under the new system is who gets left out.
LikeLike
Chet,
“A caveat is needed for another post of mine about scheduling B1G@16 with two divisions:
(a) Schedule three division schools every year,
(b) Schedule the remaining division schools 10 times over a 12-year period,
(c) Schedule the non-division schools once every three years.”
Why are 2 divisions better than scheduling as 1 united conference? Why would old B10 members want to see some of the other 10 teams 83% of the time but others only 33% of the time? Why even have divisions if you aren’t playing a full divisional round robin every year?
“For this concept, tier (b) schools would schedule six years on, one year off, four years on, one year off, according to a 12-year cycle.”
Why not 5 on, 1 off?
“Every division school would also play the same number of division games. For example:
Y01, Y04, etc: seven division schools, two non-division schools
Y02, Y03, Y05, Y06, etc: six division schools, three non-division schools”
This seems complicated.
So does your modified version yo present to correct the flaw you noted.
“Before 2011, every Big Ten school scheduled two permanent rivals annually. They then played the other conference schools six times over an 8-year period giving a frequency of 75%.”
Yes, and it was a simple concept. It’s doable at 16, too.
LikeLike
Everything works out if you just drop the divisions. Each team plays three locked rivals every year along with 6 of the other 12 teams in the conference. Rivalries are preserved, in each four year period schools would play each other once home and once away. Everyone would feel like they are part of the same conference as opposed to now where Rutgers will be in the B1G for five years before it plays Northwestern once. All we need to do is get rid of the division requirement so the top two conference records can play each other in the championship game.
LikeLike
The Scarlet Wolverine,
The intention of my post above is not to advocate for such scheduling concept. Rather my intention was to elaborate a scheduling concept for B1G@16 that would address these conditions:
(a) ADs prefer to stay with divisions,
(b) No CCG rule requiring round-robin division games,
(c) Cross-division games without locked parity scheduling.
If (c) is excluded, then similar concepts are possible if parity scheduling would be used for non-division schools, and scheduling six division games every year, rather than twice every three years.
For a 12-year cycle, schools could lock with two non-division schools: two years on, two years off, etc. For an 18-year cycle, schools could lock with three non-division schools: two years on, two years off, two years on, two years off, two years on, two years off, one year on, two years off, one year on, two years off, etc.
For both of these cycles, schools can either lock with four division schools, and rotate with the other three division schools: two years on, one year off, etc. Or lock with five division schools, and rotate with the other two division schools: two years on, two years off, etc.
However, the frequencies of these rotating division-school games reduce from 77% to 66% to 50%, both of which are less than the previous historical frequency of 75%.
LikeLike
The intention of my post above is not to advocate for such scheduling concept. Rather my intention was to elaborate a scheduling concept for B1G@16 that would address these conditions:
(a) ADs prefer to stay with divisions,
(b) No CCG rule requiring round-robin division games
I don’t think any B1G ADs have ever said they prefer to stay with divisions in a 16-team league with the CCG rules de-regulated.
If you no longer play every team in your division every year, then what purpose do divisions serve?
LikeLike
Och Vinden Ger Svar
LikeLike
Brian
“Why not 5 on, 1 off?”
Best answered by this example:
A1 // @A5, A6, @A7, A8, @A6, A5, @A8, A7
A2 // @A6, A7, @A8, A5, @A7, A6, @A5, A8
A3 // @A7, A8, @A5, A6, @A8, A7, @A6, A5
A4 // @A8, A5, @A6, A7, @A5, A8, @A7, A6
A5 // A1, @A4, A3, @A2, A4, @A1, A2, @A3
A6 // A2, @A1, A4, @A3, A1, @A2, A3, @A4
A7 // A3, @A2, A1, @A4, A2, @A3, A4, @A1
A8 // A4, @A3, A2, @A1, A3, @A4, A1, @A2
Let’s simplify the example by rotating with a frequency of three schools every year.
For A1:
Y01 // @A5, A6, @A7
Y02 // A8, @A6, A5
Y03 // @A8, A7, @A5
Y04 // A6, @A7, A8
Etc
A1 also locks with A2, A3 and A4. For 3A/3H scheduling, these games would be as follows:
Y01 // A2, @A3, A4
Y02 // @A2, A3, @A4
Y03 // A2, @A3, A4
Y04 // @A2, A3, @A4
Etc
One of A2, A3 or A4 would also have similar 2H/A, H/2A, etc, schedule rotation.
But two of A2, A3 or A4 would have the opposite (use A2 as example):
Y01 // @A1, A4, @A3
Y02 // A1, @A4, A3
Y03 // @A1, A4, @A3
Y04 // A1, @A4, A3
Etc
But A2 has similar 2A/H, A/2H, etc, rotation as A1 for the other four schools. This results in the unbalanced 4A/2H, 2A/4H, etc, schedule rotation.
LikeLike
Some footnotes to my post above:
(1) References to “18-year cycle” refer to that period when all schools play an equal amount of balanced home and away games with all other schools:
Tier (a) schools : 9 home & 9 away games
Tier (b) schools : 7 home & 7 away games
Tier (c) schools : 3 home & 3 away games
=> 9×18 = 4x(2×9) + 3x(2×7) + 8x(2×3)
However, cycles for individual schools are much shorter:
Tier (a) schools : 2 years (obviously)
Tier (b) schools : 5 years (maximum)
Tier (c) schools : 6 Years (maximum)
(2) If such “18-year cycle” is unacceptable, then the cycle can be reduced to six years, by locking five division schools and then rotating three years on, one year off, one year on, one year off, etc, with the other two division schools.
LikeLike
Brian,
“Why are 2 divisions better than scheduling as 1 united conference?”
It’s not better. My personal preference is to chuck the divisions and play as one united conference.
For B1G@14, Frank’s proposal of locking three schools, and playing the other ten schools: four years on, two years off, two years on, two years, etc; has many attractive features, among which:
Every school has a unique combination of five different home and away schedules that rotate over a 10-year cycle. This provides variety and strengthens commitments for long-term season-ticket holders.
Here is an example illustrating possible schedules for Nebraska:
Y01 // IW, MN, PSU, ILL, MD, @WI, @OSU, @NW, @RUT
Y02 // @IW, @MN, @PSU, @ILL, @MD, WI, OSU, NW, RUT
Y03 // IW, MN, UM, PU, ILL, @WI, @OSU, @MSU, @IN
Y04 // @IW, @MN, @UM, @PU, @ILL, WI, OSU, MSU, IN
Y05 // IW, MN, PSU, MD, PU, @WI, @MSU, @RUT, @NW
Y06 // @IW, @MN, @PSU, @MD, @PU, WI, MSU, RUT, NW
Y07 // IW, MN, UM, PSU, ILL, @WI, @OSU, @NW, @IN
Y08 // @IW, @MN @UM, @PSU, @ILL, WI, OSU, NW, IN
Y09 // IW, MN, UM, MD, PU, @WI, @MSU, @RUT, @IN
Y10 // @IW, @MN, @UM, @MD, @PU, WI, MSU, RUT, IN
That should get the Cornhusker’s mojo working!
LikeLike
Speaking of Legends:
Here’s a Salute to Frank’s Fighting Illini:
http://vtchl.illinois.edu/people/ven-te-chow/
The Ven Te Chow Hydrosystems Laboratory is an 11,000 square-foot hydraulic research laboratory at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, part of the top-ranked Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and named in honor of its founder, Professor Ven Te Chow.
ALL THE BEST
LikeLike
No team added to the B12 for a conference championship will add BIG dollars.
It’s the same reason the old SWC died and which destroyed the B8 and strangling the rest
of the B8 teams.
The ACC is in the same boat.
They will never get huge dollars because they are a regional brand.
And.. ESPN put all their chips behind the SEC. Unless ESPN losses the BIG10 all together,
they will not sink dollars into an ACCN or B12N. Especially with the sinkhole of having LHN.
I believe the Sooners and Kansas are heading to the BIG and Texas will try and get a deal
like ND. But, they better get it soon, Texas A&M is becoming the bull of the wood.
LikeLike
Texas A&M “bull of the wood?” If you look at this year’s recruiting rankings, Baylor is leading the pack in Texas at around #13. TCU is around 20th as is A&M (well below their last 2 years). TCU and Baylor are ranked in the top 5 in the preseason polls. Texas A&M isn’t ranked (neither is Texas, of course).
LikeLike
A&M was behind Baylor in recruiting rankings for awhile last year, too. Didn’t end up that way.
It’s still awfully early to be reading too much into next February’s recruiting class.
LikeLike
True. Just pointing out his comment about A&M domination was pretty premature. Maybe we should both be worrying about TCU and Baylor domination!
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/13437563/north-carolina-tar-heels-uncover-potentially-more-violations-academic-scandal
UNC uncovered more academic violations while preparing their response to the NCAA.
North Carolina uncovered possible additional NCAA violations in women’s basketball and men’s soccer while preparing the response to its long-running academic scandal, the school announced Friday.
Its response to the NCAA, due next week, will be delayed. The NCAA will set a date after a review of the new information, school officials said.
…
Cunningham said the new information in women’s basketball was discovered when officials prepared to release emails from former U.S. Justice Department official Kenneth Wainstein’s eight-month investigation. In their review of up to 6 million pages of information, they uncovered more examples of possible improper academic assistance to players.
They also discovered potential recruiting violations over two years in men’s soccer that were unrelated to the current NCAA probe.
“I’m very disappointed in the timing. I’m very disappointed in the impact it’s going to have on the institution, on the program, and how it delays where we were,” Cunningham said. “But I’m proud of the fact that people owned up to the mistakes that happened.”
He said those possible violations came to light when the school administered a compliance test to its men’s soccer coaches and one of them got a question wrong.
…
“We came to understand the coaches misunderstood the rules, and we immediately turned that in,” Cunningham said.
Under NCAA procedures, if those are determined to be Level I or II violations, the notice of allegations must be amended to include them. The school would then have 90 days from the day it receives the amended notice to respond, Cunningham said.
It is unclear exactly when the new possible violations were discovered. The school says they were reported to the NCAA’s committee on infractions on Aug. 10.
Cunningham said he still hopes the investigation will be resolved by spring 2016.
LikeLike
UNC is a profoundly corrupt institution. It richly deserves the death penalty in several sports.
Why anyone wants this school in the B1G is beyond me. Corrupt men’s and women’s basketball, corrupt football, corrupt soccer. Please have some self-respect.
LikeLike
I think fans of any major sports school should be careful what they say about others undergoing a scandal, especially calling for the death penalty. Everyone has some dirt. UNC appears to have more than most, but much of that could happen at any major sports school. It only takes a couple of bad apples.
LikeLike
That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if UNC is throwing women’s hoops and men’s soccer under the bus — just as it did for football a few years back — to protect its signature sport, men’s basketball. Then again, thanks to ESPN, the NCAA may deem it like Goldman Sachs, “too big to fail.”
LikeLike
Or maybe they are just trying to delay penalties until after basketball season. Now it likely won’t be decided until April or May.
LikeLike
Spoken like an alumnus of a school renowned for cheating.
LikeLike
I’ve seen a lot of schools get busted for various things over the years, even ones that claim to be squeaky clean (like UNC). And we all know that most violations never get caught ($100 handshakes, freebies, etc). The truth is, nobody really knows how many skeletons are in your school’s closet.
As is true in much of life, it’s generally better to enjoy it silently rather than publicly decry the sins of others. Something about glass houses, etc.
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone has been caught with the scale of academic fraud of UNC. The number of athletes, totally fake courses, number of sports, the length of time it went on and the intimidation of those speaking out is far beyond anything I recall. Jan Kemp is the worst one I remember before and it was nothing compared to this.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I don’t think anyone has been caught with the scale of academic fraud of UNC. The number of athletes, totally fake courses, number of sports, the length of time it went on and the intimidation of those speaking out is far beyond anything I recall. Jan Kemp is the worst one I remember before and it was nothing compared to this.”
I agree nobody has been caught with this level of problem. But what has been done and what’s been caught are two very different things.
LikeLike
UNC is a profoundly corrupt institution.
UNC athletics may have been profoundly corrupt. But athletes on schlarship are a very small percentage of the student body. I haven’t seen any evidence that the whole university is corrupt.
It richly deserves the death penalty in several sports.
Which it won’t get.
Why anyone wants this school in the B1G is beyond me.
Re-alignment is a 50-year decision. I remember the fans who wanted Penn State kicked out of the Big Ten after the Sandusky scandal. Not only did the Big Ten not kick them out, it added Maryland and Rutgers, in part because they were worried that PSU might leave the conference someday.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13436808/college-football-playoff-assigns-committee-members-conferences
The CFP committee members have been assigned their conferences to follow for the season (it changes every year).
College Football Playoff selection committee members have each been assigned to monitor and report on conferences throughout the season. The pairings:
Conf. CFP Monitors
AAC Tom Osborne, Condoleezza Rice
ACC Barry Alvarez, Pat Haden
Big Ten Dan Radakovich, Steve Wieberg
Big 12 Condoleezza Rice, Bobby Johnson
C-USA Mike Gould, Tyrone Willingham
MAC Mike Tranghese, Kirby Hocutt
MWC Tom Jernstedt, Dan Radakovich
Pac-12 Steve Wieberg, Kirby Hocutt
SEC Tyrone Willingham, Mike Tranghese
Sun Belt Tom Osborne, Bobby Johnson
Indep. Tom Jernstedt, Mike Gould
Jeff Long will not monitor any conferences so he can focus on his duties as selection committee chairman.
Modeled after the NCAA men’s basketball tournament selection committee, the CFP’s conference monitors are assigned to thoroughly study the 10 FBS conferences and report on their assignments at each of the committee’s weekly meetings. Part of that responsibility this past season included four teleconferences with their designated FBS commissioners. The assignments have changed for this season, as last year Rice and Haden were in charge of the Big Ten.
LikeLike
This may be part of Boren’s Big 12 “psychological disadvantage.” With only 10 schools, the committee is stacked with people without Big 12 connections (or hostility like Osborne). Pac 12 and Notre Dame connections are disproportionate.
LikeLike
Willingham and Rice have Notre Dame connections (seems like there is another one, but can’t see it now). Willingham (Stanford, UW), Rice (Stanford), Haden (USC), Jernstedt (Oregon) all have Pac 12 ties. So that is 4/13 Pac 12 and 2/13 for one independent school (Notre Dame).
SEC has 3-Johnson from Vanderbilt, Long from Arkansas and Wieberg who is a Missouri grad who worked in Kansas City. Big 10 has Osborne and Alvarez, two of the three coaches, who were said to carry a lot of weight, because of coaching experience. ACC has just Radakovich (Clemson/GT AD), but Long was AD at Pitt before Arkansas and Hocutt was AD at Miami before Tech. MAC even has a couple of connections. Gould from Air Force went to Kent and Hocutt worked at Ohio U. Tranghese is Big East and Providence. Big 12 just has Hocutt (Tech AD). Long is the only other connection. Perhaps the reason he is the chairman is that he has worked at VT, Michigan and OU at some point in addition to Pitt and Arkansas.
LikeLike
bullet,
“With only 10 schools, the committee is stacked with people without Big 12 connections (or hostility like Osborne).”
Stacked usually implies that it was intentional. Are you claiming that it was done on purpose or just that it turned out this way?
“Pac 12 and Notre Dame connections are disproportionate.”
Maybe, but you can count connections in many ways. Assuming they’re all patriots, it’s 13 of 13 for Army, Navy, AF, AAC and MWC. You could claim all midwesterners might help the MAC. Where do/did all of their kids/family go to school? Where all did they live, play, go to school and work along the way?
Besides, connections can be a double-edged sword. Would Haden help UCLA? Would Alvarez help MN?
Until proven otherwise, I give them all the benefit of the doubt in terms of having enough integrity to watch for bias in their voting. I could see Osborne holding a grudge against a person, perhaps, but not punishing a 2015 football team over the past as one example.
The P12 plays a style similar to the B12 (lots of spread and passing), so that should help the B12 in the room.
LikeLike
Everyone has their biases. They tend to like what they know best. They can have integrity and still not be wholly objective. Briles (Baylor coach) said he was concerned for the Big 12 when Archie Manning got ill, saying that no one else was really familiar with the Big 12 (why he thought Archie was, I don’t know).
I think Osborne is a horrible person to put on the committee. Integrity and objectivity are things I don’t associate with him at all. The way he handled Lawrence Phillips and his public comments at the time and the way he approached the Prop 16 debate in the Big 12 didn’t lend one to believe he had either of those traits.
LikeLike
Take your own advice Bullet and park your bias about Osborne until you see what he has done with his life. I don’t agree with everything the man has done, but to say he has no integrity beggars belief.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Everyone has their biases.”
Very true. But when discussing things in a small group like that, the bias is more likely to be exposed and countered with mental discipline. It’s not like all people start off anti-B12. They may favor their conference, but that should largely balance out. All that P12 influence and anti-SEC sentiment didn’t get OR the #1 seed last year.
“They tend to like what they know best.”
Some do, some don’t. More importantly, they may favor their school but punish their rivals. There’s no way to know without being in the room.
“They can have integrity and still not be wholly objective.”
If you mean having subconscious bias, of course they can. But you talk like all that bias will be unidirectional against the B12. That’s what I don’t see.
“Briles (Baylor coach) said he was concerned for the Big 12 when Archie Manning got ill, saying that no one else was really familiar with the Big 12 (why he thought Archie was, I don’t know).”
Briles wants more southerners, implying that they would automatically favor all southern teams and that everyone else would automatically be against all southern teams. AL got the #1 seed without any tremendous southern presence on the committee.
“I think Osborne is a horrible person to put on the committee.”
You are the only person I’ve seen say that.
“Integrity and objectivity are things I don’t associate with him at all.”
Everyone who knows him professionally seems to hold a different opinion. I don’t recall ever seeing anyone say something bad about him in the press other than that he couldn’t win the big game (pre-1994).
“The way he handled Lawrence Phillips and his public comments at the time and the way he approached the Prop 16 debate in the Big 12 didn’t lend one to believe he had either of those traits.”
He screwed up the Phillips saga totally. I won’t defend any part of it. I don’t remember the Prop 16 debate in the B12, so I can’t comment on that.
LikeLike
Nebraska had more prop 16s than any other CONFERENCE in the country on those great mid-90s teams. They had 23 on one of them. 2nd was either Miami or VT with 8. He was trying to justify bringing in unlimited numbers of these people who had no business on a college campus.
It was the same mentality as he had with Phillips. He was blind to anything but winning. Absolutely no ability to look at these things objectively. He got really upset about not being allowed to continue to do it. And he bad-mouthed Texas on it even though 11 schools voted against him and it was part of the understanding before the conference was even formed that Prop 16s would be limited. It was a breach of faith for Nebraska to even bring it up again.
LikeLike
Brian;
I never said the committee was anti-Big 12 (other than perhaps Osborne). The issue is that it sure looks pro-Pac 12 and pro-Notre Dame in composition and that it was relatively low on people with Big 12 connections.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Nebraska had more prop 16s than any other CONFERENCE in the country on those great mid-90s teams. They had 23 on one of them. 2nd was either Miami or VT with 8. He was trying to justify bringing in unlimited numbers of these people who had no business on a college campus.”
Sorry, I remember those as Prop 48 players, not Prop 16. Thus my confusion. Prop 16 replaced Prop 48 in the mid-90s.
To be fair, a court threw out Prop 16 in 1999 for being discriminatory.
http://www.fairtest.org/whats-wrong-proposition-48-and-16
What’s wrong with Prop. 16?
Discriminatory:
NCAA data on student-athletes’ academic performance prior to the 1986 implementation of Prop. 48 reveal the discriminatory impact of these rules. The data, reanalyzed by the McIntosh Commission on Fair Play in Student-Athlete Admissions, show that had Prop. 48 been in effect in 1984 and 1985, it would have denied full eligibility to 47% of the African American student-athletes who went on to graduate, but just 8% of the white student-athletes. More recent NCAA research shows that the test score requirement disqualifies African American student-athletes at a rate 9-10 times the rate for white students.
Unnecessary:
The NCAA’s own research shows that prior to Prop. 48 the graduation rate for African American and white student-athletes, male and female, was higher than the rate for their nonathlete counterparts. That remains true today. On this measure, athletes were already satisfying the academic standards of their respective colleges and universities without NCAA intervention. The NCAA’s procedures preempt the authority of academic officials and state legislatures to set individual institutional policies on student access to funds and resources.
Ignores NCAA’s Own Research Findings:
The NCAA’s researchers found that the “use of a fixed minimum on any single indicator is not psychometrically sound,” but this conclusion was ignored in Propositions 48 and 16. …
Violates Testmakers’ Guidelines:
…
Both the College Board (the sponsor of the SAT) and the Educational Testing Service (which administers the SAT) have long been on record with their concerns about “using minimum test scores without proper validation” and “making decisions about otherwise qualified students based only on small differences in test score.”
…
Harms Low-Income Students:
Using an SAT cut score disproportionately harms low-income students, as explained by sports ethicist Russ Gough:
“There is a strong correlation between family income and standardized test scores. The NCAA’s own studies have completely ignored this well-documented and well-known correlation. The upshot here is that, under the present rule structure, the NCAA might as well throw out its standardized test score requirements and simply allow a freshman to play or not play on the basis of his family’s income.” (“A Sporting Chance,” Washington Post, Tues. Nov. 29, 1995, p. A22)
…
Inconsistent with Test Score Optional Policies
…
He wasn’t breaking the rules as far as I know and NE allowed him to do it. I’d put the blame on the AD and admissions staff, not the HC.
“It was the same mentality as he had with Phillips. He was blind to anything but winning. Absolutely no ability to look at these things objectively.”
No coach is objective about these things. It’s why coaches shouldn’t control the punishment for breaking the law or academic issues, just for football violations.
But he is 20 years older now and not coaching so maybe he’s not that guy anymore.
“And he bad-mouthed Texas on it even though 11 schools voted against him and it was part of the understanding before the conference was even formed that Prop 16s would be limited. It was a breach of faith for Nebraska to even bring it up again.”
This sounds more like the root of your feelings. Understanding? Either it was official policy or it wasn’t. And no matter what, any school should have the right to bring up a topic again.
“I never said the committee was anti-Big 12 (other than perhaps Osborne).”
If not outright, you certainly seem to have implied it over the past few months. My apologies for misunderstanding you if that was not your intention.
“The issue is that it sure looks pro-Pac 12 and pro-Notre Dame in composition and that it was relatively low on people with Big 12 connections.”
Doesn’t the result of OR being #2 speak to the P12 not having extra power in the room?
LikeLike
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nlrb-to-rule-on-northwestern-football-players-bid-to-unionize-1438283370
According to the WSJ, the NLRB is expected to decide on the NW football player union in the next few weeks.
The article is behind a paywall.
LikeLike
A moment of clarity now we are several months out from Boren’s comments
A) Nothing happened. Unlike the past where smoke appeared prior to the end of fiscal years his comment came so late it just seemed smoke with no fire to fuel it.
B) One of my first thoughts on this blog still seems the most probable. Around June of 2010 I suggested the TD Conference and everybody on here had a good laugh as the TD was the Texas Dame conference. I correctly said neither Texas or Notre Dame would end up in the B1G and to this day this is still the case. As I was correct about Notre Dame to the ACC I still think this is where Texas winds up as well but not in the sense that they are joining the ACC as many board pundits seem to think. Instead it might be good to ponder my original thought of the TD that includes Texas and Notre Dame but is not necessarily the Big 12 or the ACC as we know it today. Perhaps it would be good to view these 2 schools as not going to the B1G, PAC, or SEC but not being part of the current conferences we now view as their homes. I know this may be splitting hairs but the resulting discussions may actually show the reality that will actually happen.
C) Early on I suggested we should view moves in how opponents would view them and not how we would like them as what we like will distort our views and cloud the realities. When I see Texas and Kansas to the B1G while the SEC gets West Virginia and Oklahoma State type posts they sound good on here but they make no sense in reality as conference realignment is dynamic and not static. The problems is others, like that crazy dude in WV, probably read this stuff and twitters it back out as gospel because that is easier than them doing their own research. It still humors me the word Twit is part of the word Twitter. While I believe this is one of the best realignment sites out there I do believe at times we all need to step back and reality check ourselves on some of the moves we project.
D) Everybody wants bigger and better and thinks their conference will land the gems when most of the last round schools proved this is not the case. Texas is still in the Big 12, North Carolina is still in the ACC, and Notre Dame has not decided to call the B1G their home. The last round was about less exciting schools and if somehow we get to a B1G 16, PAC 16, and SEC 16 it may be by adding less desirable, but solid, big state schools than the home run moves we discuss so often.
That being said we are now in the home stretch to fall football. Frank, will you do the weekly voting and ballots on here like you did the year before last? Enjoy the twins because they do grow quickly. Loki and Vincent, I find myself watching your teams more because of all your posts on here over the years so you are accomplishing the awareness goals. To everybody else lets get back to live football!
LikeLike
Duffman,
Long time, no see Duffman.
“A moment of clarity now we are several months out from Boren’s comments
A) Nothing happened. Unlike the past where smoke appeared prior to the end of fiscal years his comment came so late it just seemed smoke with no fire to fuel it.”
But with the GoR, it may have to be a smoldering fire since it can’t really flare up for 8 years or so.
“B) One of my first thoughts on this blog still seems the most probable.”
I don’t know how anyone could really apply probability to realignment moves. All the moves have a low probability.
“As I was correct about Notre Dame to the ACC I still think this is where Texas winds up as well but not in the sense that they are joining the ACC as many board pundits seem to think. Instead it might be good to ponder my original thought of the TD that includes Texas and Notre Dame but is not necessarily the Big 12 or the ACC as we know it today. Perhaps it would be good to view these 2 schools as not going to the B1G, PAC, or SEC but not being part of the current conferences we now view as their homes. I know this may be splitting hairs but the resulting discussions may actually show the reality that will actually happen.”
That’s clear as mud in terms of what you think UT will do. Take a ND-like deal with the ACC?
“C) Early on I suggested we should view moves in how opponents would view them and not how we would like them as what we like will distort our views and cloud the realities. When I see Texas and Kansas to the B1G while the SEC gets West Virginia and Oklahoma State type posts they sound good on here but they make no sense in reality as conference realignment is dynamic and not static.”
To be fair, those ideas don’t even sound good on here.
“D) Everybody wants bigger and better and thinks their conference will land the gems when most of the last round schools proved this is not the case.”
Not everybody wants bigger (smaller is better in many ways). A couple more gems may end up moving to follow the money, and that’s why people keep throwing ideas out there.
“Texas is still in the Big 12, North Carolina is still in the ACC, and Notre Dame has not decided to call the B1G their home.”
No, but ND is partially in the ACC and UT has toyed with leaving the B12. UNC appears happy for now, but nobody saw UMD leaving the ACC either.
And we all said that UMD was needed to open the door to getting UVA and UNC later. That doesn’t mean the dominos will fall that way, but UMD was a necessary first step. We’ll have a much better idea in 5-8 years about whether anybody wants to move.
“The last round was about less exciting schools and if somehow we get to a B1G 16, PAC 16, and SEC 16 it may be by adding less desirable, but solid, big state schools than the home run moves we discuss so often.”
Except as you get bigger, you are more likely to need a home run to justify further expansion. That’s a good thing in that it promotes stability. But the B12 and ACC just seem a tad light compared to the SEC, P12 and B10 right now. A few teams turning around their performance could be huge.
LikeLike
Competitively in football the B10 and ACC are a tad light. Without Ohio St. the last 8 years the Big 10 is MWC level.
Now if you are talking media long term, then you have to include the P12 with the ACC and B12. Individually on all revenue sources, not just media, the Big 12 schools are right behind the Big 12 and SEC in total revenue. All 3 are a little over $100 million average according to USA Today. The ACC and P12 lag.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Competitively in football the B10 and ACC are a tad light.”
They certainly have been. But I was thinking more about the number of brands. The B12 is light because it only has 10 teams. The ACC has strong hoops brands but hasn’t had much but FSU for a while in the football world with Miami down.
“Without Ohio St. the last 8 years the Big 10 is MWC level.”
I think MSU and WI would keep them above that, but take the top team out of any conference and it looks very different. The ACC without FSU? The SEC without AL? The P12 without OR?
“Now if you are talking media long term, then you have to include the P12 with the ACC and B12.”
I wasn’t, but you’re correct.
“Individually on all revenue sources, not just media, the Big 12 schools are right behind the Big 12 [sic] and SEC in total revenue. All 3 are a little over $100 million average according to USA Today. The ACC and P12 lag.”
Agreed.
LikeLike
Brian,
Seems like folks on some of the blogs give more and more time to Chip and The Dude and it gets tiring to read. Been reading now and again but have stayed off as this last blow up just did not seem to make as much sense as discussions in the past. Seems you and I have the sense that the GoR’s will delay things but folks on the blogs want something now.
As stated above, not sure Texas joins the ACC as some are discussing but I do feel they will eventually be in a conference with Notre Dame that contains some ACC schools. Of course I also think said conference will contain some Big 12 schools as well. Start with Texas and Notre Dame then add Oklahoma and North Carolina next and you are at the first four. The next 4 probably include Kansas, Florida State, Virginia, and Clemson. After that is where the discussion probably begins and where they stop saying everybody survives because I am not getting that vibe based on what has happened so far.
The point is it gets away from Texas going to the ACC or Florida State going to the Big 12 you see debated since 2010. I think these are all big schools with egos and donors that don’t want to feel they left their home to join somebody else. Perhaps the way around this is to let both sides feel they are each the driving force to this new collection of schools. The bigger question is who is #9 and beyond. Do they stop at 12 or do they go to 16? Do they discuss with the B1G, PAC, and SEC on spreading whats left so the GoR’s can be easily broken if 50% or 75% of the schools have landing spots.
The other big question is if some will drop voluntarily of the arms race for venues and costs of attendance become so high that some just opt out.
Like yourself, it would have been better if everybody stopped at 12 but money and greed seems to be outdistancing common sense in college sports these days. I feel like the computer in “Wargames” wanting to place a nice game of chess while the young kid(s) today just want to play Global Thermonuclear War.
LikeLike
add to comment to Brian above
You would not be correct about UMD as Vincent was all over the Terps from day one and they were actually named in the BR. Not sure why so many on the blogs gave it so little play when the report clearly outlined them indicating not only a raid on the ACC but a move east. Since the BR was produced for the B1G in the first place it never made sense to ignore it so, yet that is just what many fans on blogs did.
Vincent was the UMD voice on FtT early and I will always give him credit for it.
LikeLike
Vincent was the UMD voice on FtT early and I will always give him credit for it.
Brian probably shouldn’t have said that nobody predicted UMD to the B1G, since I suspect every re-alignment move has been predicted by somebody. Which means that after even the most improbable move, somebody will claim that they knew it all along.
But I think we could fairly say that this move was not widely predicted, even by people who have fairly good track records at predicting such things. I don’t remember Vincent. Was he a guy who got a lot of things right, or was this just the rare case where he got lucky?
LikeLike
Vincent was the UMD voice on FtT early and I will always give him credit for it.
Brian probably shouldn’t have said that nobody predicted UMD to the B1G, since I suspect every re-alignment move has been predicted by somebody. Which means that after even the most improbable move, somebody will claim that they knew it all along.
But I think we could fairly say that this move was not widely predicted, even by people who have fairly good track records at predicting such things. I don’t remember Vincent. Was he a guy who got a lot of things right, or was this just the rare case where he got lucky?
Probably a little of both. From an academic perspective, it became obvious that it made more sense for Maryland — a state whose sensbilities gradually changed from quasi-southern to quasi-northeastern following World War II — to have its flagship university with the land-grant schools of the Big Ten (and the CIC) rather than the private/smaller public mix of the ACC. (And to be fair, it certainly wouldn’t have happened if Penn State, a similar instittution in a contguous state — hadn’t done likewise a quarter-century ago.) Add the lack of a real football culture in the ACC hurting interest in that sport, as well as the opinion of many on the Board of Regents that the fan base’s preoccupation with the men’s basketball “rivalry” vs. Duke was distorting the entire athletic program, and it was apparent many in College Park welcomed a change in conferences.
But I should also note, perhaps as a way of fate preventing any hubris on my part, that the day the move leaked out — Nov. 17, 2012 — I tore the quad on my right knee when slipping on some frosty grass rushing for a bus. I was hospitalized and then in rehab for nearly three weeks, without Internet access, and many wondered what had happened to me in my moment of “triumph”; I’m certain a few even thought I had died.
LikeLike
Just figured celebrating was taking place, perhaps to excess.
LikeLike
Duffman,
“Seems like folks on some of the blogs give more and more time to Chip and The Dude and it gets tiring to read.”
The crazy stuff is more interesting to many people. It’s like playing fantasy football, but with schools instead of players.
“Seems you and I have the sense that the GoR’s will delay things but folks on the blogs want something now.”
People always want thing now. They learn to live with the disappointment.
“As stated above, not sure Texas joins the ACC as some are discussing but I do feel they will eventually be in a conference with Notre Dame that contains some ACC schools. Of course I also think said conference will contain some Big 12 schools as well. Start with Texas and Notre Dame then add Oklahoma and North Carolina next and you are at the first four. The next 4 probably include Kansas, Florida State, Virginia, and Clemson. After that is where the discussion probably begins and where they stop saying everybody survives because I am not getting that vibe based on what has happened so far.”
The basic idea makes some sense, it’s figuring out the steps that would allow it to happen. Their GoRs end 2 years apart. How do they make that work? Are the two groups so equal that they’d merge rather than 1 group adding the other?
“The point is it gets away from Texas going to the ACC or Florida State going to the Big 12 you see debated since 2010. I think these are all big schools with egos and donors that don’t want to feel they left their home to join somebody else. Perhaps the way around this is to let both sides feel they are each the driving force to this new collection of schools. The bigger question is who is #9 and beyond. Do they stop at 12 or do they go to 16? Do they discuss with the B1G, PAC, and SEC on spreading whats left so the GoR’s can be easily broken if 50% or 75% of the schools have landing spots.”
If all the most valuable schools go to this new conference, why would the others want the scraps? Why would they make it easier for this new group to form when it would mean more competition for them?
“The other big question is if some will drop voluntarily of the arms race for venues and costs of attendance become so high that some just opt out.”
Nobody has yet. Maybe some G5 schools will, but I doubt it. The I-A money is too good.
“You would not be correct about UMD as Vincent was all over the Terps from day one and they were actually named in the BR.”
It was the proverbially “nobody” not an actual statement of zero people.
The BR? What does that stand for, I’m drawing a blank?
“Vincent was the UMD voice on FtT early and I will always give him credit for it.”
I wasn’t trying to deny him his due.
LikeLike
The basic idea makes some sense, it’s figuring out the steps that would allow it to happen. Their GoRs end 2 years apart. How do they make that work?
I can think of a few ways. Once a GoR is down to two years remaining, the costs of breaking it are akin to a steep, but probably manageable, exit fee. So, one alternative is that a few ACC schools see the writing on the wall, and decide to leave two years of home media rights on the table, in favor of a much better deal in the out years. This is, in essence, what Maryland did.
Another possibility is that the key Big XII schools see this coming, and sign a two-year “bridge” deal to align their expiration date with the ACC’s date. The bottom-feeding schools would be unhappy, but what alternative would they have?
The last possibility is that they find each of their current members an “acceptable” home, and the bottom-feeders agree “voluntarily” to disband one or both conferences. As the GoRs approach expiration, they mean very little if a few key schools make it clear that they don’t intend to sign again. The schools without power might accept a deal that is not exactly what they want, but is the best they are going to get.
(I agree with Brian that the Big Ten and SEC aren’t going to help Texas and ND form their dream conference, by taking on the less desirable Big XII and ACC schools, so I am not sure what form an “acceptable” home, other than their current leagues, would take.)
LikeLike
@ Marc
Another possibility is that the key Big XII schools see this coming, and sign a two-year “bridge” deal to align their expiration date with the ACC’s date. The bottom-feeding schools would be unhappy, but what alternative would they have?
I think you are now getting what I am getting to.
The B1G and SEC have long histories which breeds more stability over time. If we are on a B1G board viewing everybody else the same way, picking off a school here and there makes the most sense to us. However, if you are a power school in a conference like the ACC or Big 12 that has not had the same long history and stability your view from that school may be the exact opposite of a B1G or SEC viewer.
The Big 12 was an uneasy merger of 2 former conferences that did not include all former members. The ACC was the 2nd break off of the old Southern Conference and happened decades after the first break off formed the SEC in the early 1930’s. The PAC was the old Pacific Coast that formed in the 1950’s and added former Border Conference members when it expanded. Since the PAC has a geographic moat they fall between the stability of the B1G / SEC and the instability of the ACC / Big 12.
As such the power schools in the ACC and Big 12 plus Notre Dame never really fully integrated as “all for one and one for all” type conferences. Six teams to the PAC in 2010 made sense because it reunited former Border Conference schools in AZ and TX while giving Texas and Oklahoma 4 other schools they had a long history with. That is vastly different then 1 or 2 schools now joining the B1G, PAC, or SEC. In all these new scenarios I just do not see the remaining top schools going into the B1G, PAC, or SEC with just 1 or 2 votes and having to submit to being the freshmen in a class full of seniors and grad students.
Instead you create a new conference where you have more teams to anchor your specific desires even if it means you only control 1/2 of a predator conference as opposed to 100% of a prey one or 1/16th of an existing predator conference like the B1G, PAC, or SEC. Texas controls their half with Oklahoma and others to support them while Notre Dame anchors the other half with North Carolina and the ACC schools to support them.
What you have is a conference that caters to the power teams still out there instead of assuming they will submit quietly into the B1G or SEC. The PAC still can go to 16 with an all Big 12 add on but Utah has now taken at least one spot that would have gone to a former Big 8 or SWC team.
If the contracts get bridged in the next few years as you suggest then my long term view will have more probability. If this happens I can see some teams at the bottom of the top half getting bids to join the B1G, PAC, and SEC even if they have issues that keep them out now.
LikeLike
@ Marc
In answer to your point, the B1G and SEC are not facilitating the emergence of this new conference, just adding a few schools from what is left after it happens.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I can think of a few ways. Once a GoR is down to two years remaining, the costs of breaking it are akin to a steep, but probably manageable, exit fee. So, one alternative is that a few ACC schools see the writing on the wall, and decide to leave two years of home media rights on the table, in favor of a much better deal in the out years. This is, in essence, what Maryland did.”
UMD was promised a huge upgrade in money from joining the B10, plus a front loaded deal to help cover their exit fee. I don’t see this new conference making as much nor do I see a set of deep pockets that could help 6 ACC schools cover the fee. Besides, there’d be a huge threat of lawsuits against whatever TV network signed the new conference.
“Another possibility is that the key Big XII schools see this coming, and sign a two-year “bridge” deal to align their expiration date with the ACC’s date. The bottom-feeding schools would be unhappy, but what alternative would they have?”
The B12 schools have sometimes shown a bitter and even vindictive side in realignment. Maybe they refuse to sign the deal on general principle and refuse to schedule the schools planning to leave.
“The last possibility is that they find each of their current members an “acceptable” home, and the bottom-feeders agree “voluntarily” to disband one or both conferences. As the GoRs approach expiration, they mean very little if a few key schools make it clear that they don’t intend to sign again. The schools without power might accept a deal that is not exactly what they want, but is the best they are going to get.
(I agree with Brian that the Big Ten and SEC aren’t going to help Texas and ND form their dream conference, by taking on the less desirable Big XII and ACC schools, so I am not sure what form an “acceptable” home, other than their current leagues, would take.)”
Essentially the only acceptable choices would be:
1. Merging the bottom halves of the B12 and ACC as well and promising them P5 status, but I don’t see why the other P5 conferences would agree to that (nor the G5).
2. Merging the bottom halves with the best of the AAC and MWC and forming a second tier that is guaranteed more CFP money than the G5 but less than the P4. Again, I’m not sure the other schools would support this.
LikeLike
Duffman,
“In answer to your point, the B1G and SEC are not facilitating the emergence of this new conference, just adding a few schools from what is left after it happens.”
Sure they’d be facilitating it. If the bottom halves need “acceptable” homes in order for the top schools to leave and the B10 and SEC provide those, that’s facilitating the formation of the new conference. So the B10 and SEC would add schools they don’t want or need, lose money per school and help form a competitor with very limited dead weight. That plan makes no sense.
LikeLike
Duffman
The biggest problem with your entire scenario is the assumption that Notre Dame can lead in the creation of a conference. If the ACC is slowly dying (in no way my belief), there are better options for many current ACC schools than following Notre Dame. At this point, Notre Dame’s influence over ACC schools barely has a financial aspect…probably less influence than FOX’s control over BIG schools via its partnership managing the BTN.
Leadership requires some amount of followers. Navy, Army and BYU are the only schools that have ever followed UND’s lead.
LikeLike
“Do they discuss with the B1G, PAC, and SEC on spreading whats left so the GoR’s can be easily broken if 50% or 75% of the schools have landing spots.”
They can ask to discuss it all they want.
I hope you aren’t suggesting the B1G, PAC, and SEC would even think about holding a serious discussion about subverting their own potential future hopes and “take one” (or more) for…the other team?
LikeLike
A fine example of football monomania. How does one build a conference on two such radically disparate schools as Notre Dame and U. Texas-Austin? Why not include USC, BYU, LSU, tOSU, FSU and Alabama, as well? Now there’s a football-only collection. Why even play the other sports or go to class?
Conferences form spontaneously among schools that are near each other and that have a common culture. And these two characteristics stabilize the conferences. In long-lasting conferences, the original attractions become reinforced by a common history. It is no accident that the B1G, SEC and PAC are stable and have bright futures.
Notre Dame is a small, Catholic college, with a small non-AAU graduate program and strong cultural and emotional links to urban Catholics, especially those in the Northeast. ND is in a small Midwest city right in the snow belt and gets lots of lake-effect snow. Its alumni are dispersed nationally, and it plays a national football and basketball schedule. Not so for the other sports.
Texas is a very large public flagship university, with a very large, well-regarded AAU graduate research program, and a strong southern identity. It has a national identity, and a somewhat dispersed alumni base, but it plays a regional schedule in all sports.
They are a thousand miles apart and don’t speak the same language.
By any rational measure Texas belongs in the B12, and ND belongs in the ACC.
LikeLike
“Conferences form spontaneously among schools that are near each other and that have a common culture. And these two characteristics stabilize the conferences. In long-lasting conferences, the original attractions become reinforced by a common history. It is no accident that the B1G, SEC and PAC are stable and have bright futures.”
I could not have said that better myself.
“Notre Dame is a small, Catholic college, with a small non-AAU graduate program and strong cultural and emotional links to urban Catholics, especially those in the Northeast. ND is in a small Midwest city right in the snow belt and gets lots of lake-effect snow. Its alumni are dispersed nationally, and it plays a national football and basketball schedule. Not so for the other sports.”
These facts are why I have always taken rumors of B12 membership for Notre Dame (even with the school’s football program staying independent) with a bushel of salt and also why, while I once thought that ND was at best dumb and at worst stuck-up for not wanting to be in the B1G, that school’s aversions to both B1G membership in any sport and committing its football team to any conference make too much sense to me nowadays.
“Texas is a very large public flagship university, with a very large, well-regarded AAU graduate research program, and a strong southern identity. It has a national identity, and a somewhat dispersed alumni base, but it plays a regional schedule in all sports.”
The Longhorns’ apparent desire for multiple geographically close rivals is why, unless multiple B12 schools in the state of Texas and/or the State of Oklahoma are willing to tag along, I do not regard membership in the ACC (even with a Notre Dame-style arrangement for football) as being a particularly realistic future for the University of Texas. Personally, I find it easier to imagine a post-B12 Texas having an independent football team and placing its other sports in the pipsqueak-laden Southland Conference, which at least has all of its schools within a reasonable driving distance from Austin.
LikeLike
I understand your points bob…but I think you may be not considering that UT is aspiring for more. I’d be hard pressed to name a more under-achieving program compared to its immense resources. That’s not to say they haven’t been successful…but the potential is so much more. The status quo isn’t working.
LikeLike
Bob Sykes
Great post. One of the weaknesses of the ACC is that it has really lost its sense of common culture. The expansion to 12 teams was really botched. The drive for short term TV revenue over cultural fit, was a mistake.
For example, the zipper division split isolated too many schools. It would have been much better if the ACC had split north-south; or maybe having UMD in the Coastal (allowing it to continue it’s ties to UVa, UNC and Duke); and Miami in the Atlantic (giving BC at least 1 historic rival so that it could truly integrate). Fortunately, VT and UVa were put together…even though the Hookies have dominated my ‘Hoos, the rivalry has grown.
Even more fundamental, the selection of BC was too big of a cultural stretch. Delaney is correct in stressing the importance of expanding to contiguous states. For a decade, BC had no geographic or historic rival while in the ACC. BC is great school, in a large TV market. But when the program falls in football stature, it’s too exposed and isolated to add much value. Pitt or Rutgers would have been better fits in 2005. In combination with Syracuse or Notre Dame, is the best way to assimilate BC.
LikeLike
@ bob
Read my post above and pay attention to the predator and prey issues
B1G / PAC / SEC = big and stable with long common history and shared control
vs
ACC / Big 12 = big and unstable with prima donna schools wanting control
Texas may be a large public and Notre Dame may be a small private but they both share a desire to have as much control as they can while ensuring the vehicle that allows them to keep this control, or at least more control than a single vote in the B1G or SEC would allow. You comment of Texas in the Big 12 and Notre Dame in the ACC only holds weight if both are secure, which they are not.
Say you are Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, or North Carolina. Would you rather control a division in a true 4th power conference or be limited to a single vote in the B1G or SEC? realignment has made strange bedfellows and it what may be the final round I would not be at all shocked to see a new conference emerge from schools not in the B1G, PAC, or SEC forming to create a real 4th power conference. In terms of audience and coverage, a 16 team conference composed of non predator conference schools would get to greater power and stability while not giving up semi independence as they would remaining as ACC, Big 12, or IND schools?
My gut feeling tells me this is not a “what if” issue as much as a “when” issue.
The B1G, PAC, and SEC will retain their anchor weight schools because they are stable and those school are grandfathered in and may never leave. A new 4th conference could cherry pick the top and mid schools from the ACC + Big 12 + ?? while leaving the boat anchor bottom feeders behind. this should mean the average school value should make the conference a money generator from day 1.
LikeLike
Yesterday I attended a pre-football get-together on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood from the Big Ten Club of Southern California, wearing my Maryland cap and women’s basketball tournament champion T-shirt. All treated this Terp kindly; heck, I even won $75 in the 50/50 drawing. Compare that to the B1G Sports Talk Facebook site (https://www.facebook.com/groups/214198592113608/), 90 percent of which consists of obnoxious OSU/Mich/MSU sniping that achieves nothing. Perhaps many of you aligned with other member schools should join, if only to raise the tone of conversation.
LikeLike
Most sites discussing B10 football devolve rapidly into sewers. Combine that with my not using Facebook and I think I’ll opt out.
LikeLike
Yes, if there is any B12-ACC merger/new conference it will need the help of at least one of the B1G or SEC to help it along, but they will not be taking the dregs. The B1G and/or SEC.could take any from NC, VA, Duke. VT, or NCSU. Now the PAC/SEC/B1G might also take TX and OK, but if those schools are gone from the B1G there is no reason for the ACC to do a merger even if they lose 4 schools. The ACC can just help themselves to the best football schools left in the B12 to make sure the B12 goes the way of the BE. It will only require a couple of invites for the rest of the B12 to be demoted.
LikeLike
All these scenarios require “herding cats” (getting all the conferences to cooperate). Or just ignoring the GOR and decisions all these schools have made before and assume they want to do something the exact opposite of what they did 1-3 years ago.
LikeLike
No cooperation is required. If either the B1G or the SEC manages to raid the ACC of two of its top schools (and both would like to add NC and VA), it will be relatively easy for the other to pick off a few schools. This can be in 2027 with the ACC GoR expires. Both the B1G and SEC will be acting in their self interest, just as they did when they took 3 members from the B12. What I said was that an ACC/B12 merger will not happen unless the ACC has lost some top schools while the B12 has not. It is not a probable outcome, just a possible one. The most probable outcome is that TX and NC continue to rule their fiefdoms. NC has no THN (Tarheel Network) holding it back, but still has chosen to stay with the ACC. The B12 getting raided of its best schools when its GoR expires is also more probable than a merger.
LikeLike
I don’t know anyone from UNC or UVA who is remotely interested in going to the B1G. I’m sure there are a few out there…but the vast majority has no interest. That’s no slight…it’s just too drastic a change. It will be a desperation move if it happens.
LikeLike
I agree with you, but how many Maryland alums wanted to go to the B1G? Quite a few NC and VA alums would like to go the SEC, but most like the ACC. The leadership of both schools wants to stay in the ACC, but if that ever becomes untenable, the presidents and boards will consider more than alum and fan preference when choosing between the SEC and B1G.
LikeLike
I still fail to see in that hypothetical scenario how Iowa State, whose football attendance dwarfs several in the ACC and is a regional power and attendance leader in both men’s and women’s basketball, gets tossed out of the P5 while Wake Forest stays in.
LikeLike
Why does there need to be a reason beyond circumstances totally unrelated to football? One school is in the right conference and the other in the wrong conference. If a conference folds, the school in the wrong conference is in trouble.
If the ACC collapsed and the Big 12 (and other conferences) were to pick up ACC schools, Wake Forest has no home. Wake does not offer much – except that it is already in a P5 league. With no ACC, neither the B1G nor the SEC have any need for Wake, so it would no longer be a P5 school. Other ACC schools would also be out in the cold if their league dies.
On the other hand, if the Big 12 collapses, where could Iowa State go? It is the number two school in a relatively small state. It is not the little brother to Iowa, since there is no way that Iowa could get Iowa State in to the B1G.
By the way, is it fair to UConn that it is out in the cold? The Big East died as a football conference, the ACC did not take UConn and UConn does not offer enough to the B1G. There is no P5 conference for UConn, notwithstanding great basketball.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie pretty much said it. Like WSU, Vanderbilt, and Northwestern both ISU and Wake Forest are toast if their conferences implode (not much danger for the first 3). ISU will never replace Wake Forest despite being a better school. As long as the ACC is not in danger of losing it power status there is little incentive for it to get rid of members since that may require dissolving the conference. If that danger exists Wake Forest could get dumped, but that will just leave both schools out, so ISU cannot benefit. ISU’s only hope of staying in the P5 is to keep TX and OK in the B12. For the same reason Wake Forest wants NC, NCSU, Duke, VA, VT, GT, Clemson and FSU to remain in the ACC.
LikeLike
If anyone ever gets booted from the ACC, I’d see it as BC. They don’t really bring anything to the table, especially since nobody up in Boston really even cares about them to my knowledge.
LikeLike
@ Vincent
This is why I think a new entity evolves and becomes the 4th and final power conference. Texas anchors one side and Notre Dame the other. Notre Dame becomes the lead private as you need at least 1 for privacy reasons. After that you build up a 12 to 16 member conference that can stand on its own as a real 4th P5. The problem with the current ACC and Big 12 is dead weight that will stay dead weight as long as both these groups become 2nd tier to the B1G, PAC, and SEC. You start with 4 or 5 top football schools, add 4 or 3 top basketball schools and work your way down. At some point you eliminate schools the B1G, PAC, and SEC schools want and they are left with taking schools like Iowa State or North Carolina State to fill in the last spots. While not ideal to is not like some of these schools are bad.
If say the B1G gets Pittsburgh and Iowa State they would have added 2 AAU schools and solidified #1 and #2 in Iowa and Pennsylvania. PAC stays at 12 or adds some of the Big 12 schools because they can. SEC adds Georgia Tech and Clemson to lock down #1 and #2 in Georgia and South Carolina. None of these are home runs but they are all decent additions for solidifying their existing footprints. Again, with the egos is it really possible for teams used to running their own rules will adapt to membership in the B1G, PAC, or SEC?
Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Notre Dame are used to running things so why would any leave a place where they have control to move to a place where they have just a single voice? if they are making the rules to this new entity they can draft it so they each have more control while maintaing some form of their individual identities. This just makes more sense then them dropping historic power to fold into a group they have little history with.
I think it is telling that none of the lead dogs – exception to Nebraska which had been down going into realignment this round – jumped during this last round which everybody in all these debates seem to keep forgetting or overlooking. Everybody else that switched since 2009 where mostly middle of the pack big state schools which may have indicated they were not the leaders but happy to find a landing space where they felt more secure or more at home.
Start with Big 12 (10 teams) + ACC (15 w ND) + Go5’s most discussed (BYU, UC, and ??) and build a 16 team conference with the best picks. What is left goes to the other 3. This way Texas keeps the LHN and Notre Dame keeps NBC. The other big schools can probably carve out their own media deals while you have a loose umbrella for everything else. Sure some schools like Baylor or Wake Forest may not find P4 homes but if 60% – 80% of the Big 12 and ACC can find a P4 landing spot both conferences can dissolve and the GoR’s is no longer an issue.
.
…
.
The other option is these 18 – 24 team B1G and SEC conferences which will probably not sustain themselves as they would have become too big and too spread out. Unlike pro football, college feeds better when you can drive to games instead of flying and long term in state or border rivalries mean longer term stability and security.
LikeLike
At some point you eliminate schools the B1G, PAC, and SEC schools want and they are left with taking schools like Iowa State or North Carolina State to fill in the last spots. While not ideal to is not like some of these schools are bad.
If say the B1G gets Pittsburgh and Iowa State they would have added 2 AAU schools and solidified #1 and #2 in Iowa and Pennsylvania.
Why would the B1G split their existing pie with Pitt and Iowa State, when they can stay at 14? I’m sure there will be plenty of sadness and tears for the schools that get kicked to the curb, but that doesn’t mean the B1G will come to their rescue.
Remember, when it looked like a quartet of TX and OK schools might join the Pac, the remnants of the Big 12 were in serious conversations about joining the Big East. The B1G was not about to take Iowa State, and still won’t.
SEC adds Georgia Tech and Clemson to lock down #1 and #2 in Georgia and South Carolina.
The SEC has already locked down Georgia and S.C. They aren’t going to take extra schools they don’t want, just to help out the schools that ND and Texas decided weren’t good enough for their super-conference.
LikeLike
Marc,
What I am trying to get across was that if the top remaining schools went to this new conference they would be off the boards in terms of being added to any of the B1G, PAC, and SEC schools. Not saying the B1G winds up with specifically Iowa State and Pittsburgh but used them as examples of how to get to 16 if names like Texas and Notre Dame are no longer possible.
Much of the debate surrounds getting a top team or two while stopping the other top conferences from getting them. If a real 4th conference emerges it eliminates these schools from the mix so the other 3 may still find enough value to absorb the scraps even tho it may go against no overlap policy currently employed. What I am driving at is discussing two points and how each person would view their own version of what team goes where.
Point #1
Establish the best 12 to 16 conference you could assemble with any FBS DI teams currently not in the B1G, PAC, and SEC. Make your picks on what would be best for that conference even if it means schools like Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Florida State, and North Carolina never wind up in the B1G {or PAC or SEC either}
Point #2
Once you have done this see what remains and what might be absorbed by the P3 as reality means no more top teams are available. At this point perhaps you are right and the B1G and SEC stay at 14 but I believe if this reality occurs you will see both pick up 2 schools that still fit their conference profile but look like non adds now because everybody still believes they can get Texas or Notre Dame type schools.
.
…
.
As example
Point #1 : a sample new conference
Texas + Oklahoma + Notre Dame + Florida State = elite football schools
North Carolina + Kansas + Louisville + Duke = elite basketball schools
Virginia + NC State + Virginia Tech + Clemson = former east filler
Texas Tech + Oklahoma State + Kansas State + BYU = former west filler
Point #2 : a sample of the leftovers
Former ACC
Boston College
Syracuse
Pittsburgh = picked up by B1G {already AAU school}
Wake Forest
Georgia Tech = Picked up by SEC as AAU add {and former member}
Miami
Former Big 12
Iowa State = Picked up by B1G {already AAU school}
TCU
Baylor
West Virginia
Other schools near top of Gang of Five
Cincinnati
Houston
Rice (for Loki)
Tulane = Picked up by SEC as AAU add {and former member}
.
…
.
While the B1G and SEC do not get what they want, the new conference gets what it wants including protecting the little brother schools and being part of multiple votes in the new conference instead of a singular vote in the B1G, PAC, or SEC. Smart move may be to put the HQ in Indianapolis {as NCAA is based there} and it would be neutral from the start to former Big 12 and ACC schools and makes Notre Dame feel safer about being in the new conference long term. JerryWorld would get the football CCG and a venue in NC would get the basketball tourney.
In short, flip realignment thinking on its side and reshuffle the deck based on 1 of 4 power conferences allowing for non conforming schools to fit in a place where they may not in the B1G, PAC, and SEC and having formidable enough names to provide real long term security as a solid conference equal to the B1G, PAC, and SEC while not just being absorbed by them.
LikeLike
…perhaps you are right and the B1G and SEC stay at 14 but I believe if this reality occurs you will see both pick up 2 schools that still fit their conference profile but look like non adds now because everybody still believes they can get Texas or Notre Dame type schools.
I think you are mistaken about the reasons why the Big Ten has not added Iowa State. It’s not because they still think they can get Texas and/or Notre Dame. It’s because they don’t want Iowa State under any circumstances.
Their strategy, as I understand it, is not to get to 16 with the best two remaining schools. Their strategy is to add schools that make sense, if and when they are available — if being the key word. If no schools meet their criteria, they wait—possibly for many, many years.
Conference re-alignment has a much longer fuse than the attention span of most fans. As Jim Delany likes to point out, he stood pat at 11 schools for 21 years. The next re-alignment won’t take any possibility permanently off the table. The Big 12 is only 20 years old, and already people are writing its obituary. The original Big East lasted for less than 25 years.
The Brave New World ACC/B12 hybrid conference, which seems like such a good idea now, is probably still not going to match the per-school pay-outs of the Big Ten or the SEC. And maybe a power conference with all of those egos at the table won’t work out so well. The Big Ten can sit back and wait for the rest of the country to figure that out.
LikeLike
Duffman,
“What I am trying to get across was that if the top remaining schools went to this new conference they would be off the boards in terms of being added to any of the B1G, PAC, and SEC schools. Not saying the B1G winds up with specifically Iowa State and Pittsburgh but used them as examples of how to get to 16 if names like Texas and Notre Dame are no longer possible.”
I guess the problem we’re having is understanding why those 3 conferences would look to expand further if all the top ACC and B12 schools were in this new conference. There is little inherent value in getting to 16. The additional schools need to bring the value to the table. Using the B10 as an example, the only candidate schools that seem like they might be at least break even additions are UT, OU, KU, UVA, VT, UNC, Duke and GT. Am I forgetting anyone? Because if all those schools are off the table, why would the B10 expand? You lose togetherness as you expand, so the new schools have to add something.
“Point #1
Establish the best 12 to 16 conference you could assemble with any FBS DI teams currently not in the B1G, PAC, and SEC. Make your picks on what would be best for that conference even if it means schools like Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Florida State, and North Carolina never wind up in the B1G {or PAC or SEC either}”
But how does that group form? They’d need the votes to defeat both GoRs or wait until the B12 GoR expires and the ACC one has 2 years left. Even then, that’s a lot of schools that would all need to be convinced to take the risk of forming a new conference that is split geographically and hope the money is there despite a lack of familiarity with half of the teams and long travel distances for many games. It seems more likely to me that the ACC would try to just add the best B12 schools (or vice versa).
“Point #2
Once you have done this see what remains and what might be absorbed by the P3 as reality means no more top teams are available. At this point perhaps you are right and the B1G and SEC stay at 14 but I believe if this reality occurs you will see both pick up 2 schools that still fit their conference profile but look like non adds now because everybody still believes they can get Texas or Notre Dame type schools.”
As with Marc, I don’t UT and ND are the reason other schools haven’t been added. Sure the B10 would like them (I think so, anyway). but the question is what value can a new member provide. We’ve discussed on here whether or not OU and KU are viable candidates and are worth adding. There’s zero chance ISU, KSU, OkSU, TT, Baylor or TCU are worth it to the B10. Likewise, B10 interest in ACC schools seems to stop after UVA, VT, UNC, Duke and GT, and maybe not even all of those are viable options (VT – academics, GT – distance, Duke – size and location).
The SEC and P12 are similarly limited in terms of which schools hold any interest to them. And if the media environment changes, the lists might get even shorter.
“While the B1G and SEC do not get what they want, the new conference gets what it wants”
I get why it makes sense to those 12-16 schools to form this conference. I don’t get why the other power conferences would pick up the scraps.
LikeLike
Brian and Marc,
We can agree that realignment is being most driven by TV deals than regional pairings and folks like FOX and ESPN are writing the checks the university presidents are cashing. If I am ESPN or FOX and I am writing the checks I want long term deals and stability that allow me to best plan long term revenue streams. Gone are the days when the football coach at Georgia Tech could make the call to leave the SEC the way they did in the 1960’s. With such a big contracts and being the one writing the checks maybe the B1G and SEC are “encouraged” to add the extra 2 schools to resolve long term court cases by enough schools that would be left behind to stop it all dead in the tracks instead of moving to orderly conclusion.
I still think Utah to the PAC was mostly to stop politicians with power at the national level from stepping in to force realignment that would leave some schools out in the cold. Using a similar view it is not out of the question is a school or two is “encouraged” by the networks writing the checks to ensure the overall peace.
As stated before, some still get left out, but enough get a lifeboat to stop lawsuits so ESPN and FOX can get back to making uninterrupted revenue streams. As long as college presidents are hooked to the big checks, why would they stand up and possibly stop them?
What I am stating if if a real 4th conference arises from schools not currently in the B1G, PAC, or SEC and they go to 16 it would not surprise me if FOX and ESPN encouraged the B1G and SEC to go to 16 as well if these two wind up with control of all 4 conferences and no threats of litigation by enough schools to make this happen even if FOX and ESPN “encourage” the B1G and SEC to take 2 more.
B1G and SEC could stay at 14 or they could go to 16. Long term both options are certainly possible but Adding ESPN and FOX to the mix makes me think the probability of both going to 16 has the greater probability. I put Iowa State and Pittsburgh both in the B1G as they are both AAU but if you are hung up name two others. The purpose of the post was for folks to name 12 to 16 to go to the new conference and then who might go where with what is left. Not sure why this seems to confusing to do?
LikeLike
Duffman:
“I put Iowa State and Pittsburgh both in the B1G as they are both AAU but if you are hung up name two others.”
The only others the B1G would take are anchors of B12 v2.0 (this new combination conference).
Money talks, but the B1G sat at 11, and missed 21 years worth of ccg income. It must talk louder to some than to others.
LikeLike
If I am ESPN or FOX and I am writing the checks I want long term deals and stability that allow me to best plan long term revenue streams. . . . With such a big contracts and being the one writing the checks maybe the B1G and SEC are “encouraged” to add the extra 2 schools to resolve long term court cases by enough schools that would be left behind to stop it all dead in the tracks instead of moving to orderly conclusion.
It’s wildly impluasible that the two strongest P5 leagues (the B1G and SEC) would be, in essence, “forced at gunpoint” to take schools they clearly don’t have any use for, so that the two weakest P5 leagues (the ACC and Big 12) can improve their position.
A radical move, such as you are suggesting, would occur because the better schools of the ACC and Big 12 realize that both conferences are unviable in their current forms. Why, as a reward for their failure, should they get literallly everything they want, while their competitors get nothing they want?
I put Iowa State and Pittsburgh both in the B1G as they are both AAU but if you are hung up name two others.
I’ll let you fix your own proposal, but Ithe B1G and SEC would each need to get something they actually want.
LikeLike
The most unrealistic thing about these 16 team scenarios is that someone will take lesser teams in order for another conference to benefit. Whether its a Big 12/ACC merger scenario or a Big 12 dissolution scenario, at least 2 conferences get little value.
There simply isn’t much value in having 4 instead of 5 in and of itself. You’re still splitting among the same number of schools, just through 4 instead of 5 conferences.
LikeLike
Duffman,
“We can agree that realignment is being most driven by TV deals than regional pairings and folks like FOX and ESPN are writing the checks the university presidents are cashing.”
Yes.
“With such a big contracts and being the one writing the checks maybe the B1G and SEC are “encouraged” to add the extra 2 schools to resolve long term court cases by enough schools that would be left behind to stop it all dead in the tracks instead of moving to orderly conclusion.”
I think that would be illegal and thus get them sued anyway. ESPN made sure to clarify that they never told any conference who to add last time. Besides, their stockholders would object to paying more money than there is actual value in the deal.
“I still think Utah to the PAC was mostly to stop politicians with power at the national level from stepping in to force realignment that would leave some schools out in the cold.”
I couldn’t disagree more. They needed a partner for CO. Utah was the best available option that fit P10 criteria (no BYU, no Boise, no CA schools). They wanted UT, TT, OU, OkSU and KU, but with the P16 off the board, so was KU.
LikeLike
“SEC adds Georgia Tech and Clemson to lock down #1 and #2 in Georgia and South Carolina.”
You lost me here. The SEC will not duplicate markets they already own and UGA and USCe will not let this happen. Just like FSU won’t be invited. This is a SEC blood oath.
LikeLike
@ Tom
It is going with the thinking that we are looking at realignment in the wrong light and having a 4th power conference actually emerge is the different reality. Once that happens and the top schools are no longer in play, you may have overlapping schools added as the “dream” schools in most realignment set ups involve the Big 3 getting bigger and the expense of the other 2.
Early on when Frank started this blog and especially when it picked up steam when he started posting on realignment I suggested a separation of the Big Six back then into the 3 predator {B1G, PAC, and SEC} conferences and the 3 prey {ACC, Big East, and Big 12} conferences. We have all seen the demise of the Big East but most realignment suggests the remaining two will fold when they lose the top few schools in each. My suggestion is an actual 4th power conference emerges instead (The TD Conference in my posts back in 2010) and once the top target schools are secure and settled, the remaining power conferences {B1G, PAC, and SEC} all add solid but lesser schools even if it goes against the current mantra of not overlapping a current footprint state.
Seems like back in 2010 on several themes on here, Pittsburgh was a perfect B1G addition except they were overlap to Penn State and a school like Texas or Notre Dame was preferred. However, if the top schools in prey conferences became the anchors in a new 4th conference then it might reopen how schools get added and overlap schools might be in play then as they are just secondary now. Frank can correct me, but seem when we discussed Pitt back then they were most B1G like, and only their footprint was the holdback.
I guess this view is trying to look more at what schools like Texas and Notre Dame might actually do instead of viewing in on how a B1G blogger and fan might view it.
A big part of this has to deal with my suggestions that the B1G add Kansas and Missouri as 13 and 14 when they added Nebraska at 12. I got shot down as even the ones on here who supported said teams were like “add them, but add them last at 15 and 16”. Now we have the reality of Missouri in the SEC and based on their boards, they are never joining the B1G now. I look at this as opportunity lost because Delany & Co were too focused landing the big fish they did not pick up the decent fish that could lead to landing the big fish.
LikeLike
Duffman, With the power of hindsight, do you believe that the B1G would now be better off with Kansas and Missouri as opposed to UMd and RU?
Do you think that the B1G presidents are sorry that they did not add to the league footprint the states of Kansas and Missouri, as opposed to the area from Washington, D.C. to New York City (including at least a piece of northern Virginia and maybe even a little bit of eastern Pennsylvania)?
How much extra money (and power) does the B1G have from going east rather than to Kansas and Missouri?
How many B1G alumni are in the area from DC to NYC as compared to in KS and MO?
While Pitt might be the “perfect” addition to the B1G, they are still the number 2 school in PA. How much extra would the networks pay for Pitt, when it adds few if any eyeballs, or dollars per eyeball?
As a secondary issue, why would PSU really want Pitt to be in the B1G? Seems to be much better for PSU to have two neighboring states to the east, rather than Pitt down the road. (Yes, old time PSU fans certainly must miss the Pitt rivalry, but such is life).
Why should PSU have to fight with Pitt for B1G fans in PA? I think that the ACC will never have the hold on PA that the B1G has. What was the interest level in PA when tOSU was going for a national title, as opposed to FSU?
LikeLike
Duffman,
“My suggestion is an actual 4th power conference emerges instead (The TD Conference in my posts back in 2010) and once the top target schools are secure and settled, the remaining power conferences {B1G, PAC, and SEC} all add solid but lesser schools even if it goes against the current mantra of not overlapping a current footprint state.”
The problem we all have is that we don’t find any of your reasons for why the other P3 would add the scraps plausible. The B10 won’t expand to lose money and if your hybrid forms there will be zero schools not in a P4 conference that would make more money for the B10. Zero. There is no plausible way Pitt or ISU could even be break even additions, and they certainly don’t add anything the B10 lacks. They would just be more dead weight in CFB.
Check the math:
The B10 is expecting to start earning over $33M per year per school just from TV soon. How could Pitt or ISU possibly earn that? That would add almost nothing to the BTN except inventory. They would add no top level games in CFB. They would hurt average TV ratings. They would add no elite MBB games. How could ESPN/FOX justify paying well over $66M per year for them?
“Seems like back in 2010 on several themes on here, Pittsburgh was a perfect B1G addition except they were overlap to Penn State and a school like Texas or Notre Dame was preferred.”
UT and ND had nothing to do with it. Pitt would be a perfect fit but they bring literally zero value. The same with ISU.
“However, if the top schools in prey conferences became the anchors in a new 4th conference then it might reopen how schools get added and overlap schools might be in play then as they are just secondary now.”
The facts don’t change because the best schools are gone. There is no inherent gain from expanding beyond 14. The schools themselves have to provide that value, and either they can or they can’t. Pitt and ISU cannot provide sufficient value to the B10 to justify their addition. No set of expansion moves will change that fact. They’d be great fits but they don’t add anything. It would be a net loss for the B10 financially, plus the rivalries would be even further diluted.
“I guess this view is trying to look more at what schools like Texas and Notre Dame might actually do instead of viewing in on how a B1G blogger and fan might view it.”
What UT and ND do doesn’t change the value of other schools to the B10. There is a stark cutoff in value which a school must provide to be a viable option and none of the remaining schools in your scenario meet that standard.
“A big part of this has to deal with my suggestions that the B1G add Kansas and Missouri as 13 and 14 when they added Nebraska at 12. I got shot down as even the ones on here who supported said teams were like “add them, but add them last at 15 and 16”.”
MO and KU were marginal additions at best. If they were needed to make UT feel comfortable, then fine. In and of themselves, I’m not sure they add any value to the B10. You don’t dilute rivalries just to break even.
“Now we have the reality of Missouri in the SEC and based on their boards, they are never joining the B1G now. I look at this as opportunity lost because Delany & Co were too focused landing the big fish they did not pick up the decent fish that could lead to landing the big fish.”
The B10 wanted a combination of big brands, strong demographics and strong academics. NE provided a football brand and marginal academics. RU and UMD provided strong demographics and solid academics. KU and MO would provide marginal academics as well. Their demographics aren’t great, either. KU would provide a hoops brand (much less valuable than a football brand) while MO is just solid in sports. I doubt the B10 would get more per school after adding them, but they’d probably get a pro rata increase.
LikeLike
A big part of this has to deal with my suggestions that the B1G add Kansas and Missouri as 13 and 14 when they added Nebraska at 12. I got shot down as even the ones on here who supported said teams were like “add them, but add them last at 15 and 16”.
You weren’t shot down by commenters on a message board. You were shot down by the Big Ten, which wanted to expand into larger markets, build a bridge to the Southeast, and acquire rivals for Penn State.
It is conceivable (though far from certain) that if the B1G had had its pick of any two schools adjacent to the 12-team footprint, it would’ve chosen Maryland and Missouri. It’s a close call, and they might’ve preferred Rutgers anyway, but Missouri does have points in its favor. I think there is zero chance that anyone in the B1G (besides maybe certain Nebraskans) wishes they’d taken Missouri and Kansas.
Given that they never actually had a shot at Missouri and Maryland (as there was no time when both were simultaneously available) I doubt anyone in authority in the B1G is regretful that they made the moves they did.
Now we have the reality of Missouri in the SEC and based on their boards, they are never joining the B1G now.
While I agree it’s highly unlikely they’ll ever leave the SEC, I am skeptical that posters on message boards would be the source of this information.
LikeLike
In the unlikely event a conference forms with the best of the ACC and B12 that will freeze the total membership of the SEC, B1G, and PAC at 40. Any school that gets left out gets relegated so the power schools get reduced by 8-12 depending on how many members the merged conference has (w ND retaining its current status). The ACC/B12 scraps are of no interest to other power conferences. There could be a mad realignment scramble in the Go5 if one or two rump B12/ACC conferences decide to reload by picking apart the AAC and MWC.
LikeLike
NLRB rules against Northwestern football union.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-17/northwestern-football-players-cannot-form-a-union-nlrb-rules
LikeLike
Perhaps the first step in reversing (or at least slowing) the movement toward professionalized college sports.
LikeLike
Hopefully it served it’s purpose along with all these lawsuits of getting the NCAA and the schools to think about what they do and be a little more fair with the athletes. Stop selling so much stuff with likenesses on it if you won’t pay people for it. It’s that simple.
Maybe in the future they’ll do a better job of explaining where all their revenues go since most fans seem clueless.
LikeLike
“Stop selling so much stuff with likenesses on it if you won’t pay people for it.”
I forgot to post when I heard it last week, but I heard on a podcast (ESPN College Football? 538?) that most schools this year are no longer selling jerseys with player-specific numbers on them. They are mostly selling number 1 and number 15 for the current season. It was pointed out that OSU has Elliot coincidentally wearing 15 this year and Barrett wearing 16 next year.
It is an easy first step towards avoiding player-specific sales.
LikeLike
So…I can’t get a jersey with my particular favorite number? Not having a name is all that should be required. Individuals don’t/can’t own numbers. They may be associated with one, but that is up to the individual to make the association.
My understanding is that the school’s make very little (compared to other income sources) off merchandise sales. It’s basically school branded promotional material, from which Nike, Adidas, etc are the real profit makers.
LikeLike
greg,
“I forgot to post when I heard it last week, but I heard on a podcast (ESPN College Football? 538?) that most schools this year are no longer selling jerseys with player-specific numbers on them. They are mostly selling number 1 and number 15 for the current season. It was pointed out that OSU has Elliot coincidentally wearing 15 this year and Barrett wearing 16 next year.
It is an easy first step towards avoiding player-specific sales.”
Yep. I linked this NYT article about it a few days ago. The trend for many/most schools is #1 and #yy only. I’m sure players will seek out those numbers, but many schools follow the old rules of certain positions wearing certain numbers only.
The point is that fans want the school jersey more than they want a specific player’s jersey.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“So…I can’t get a jersey with my particular favorite number? Not having a name is all that should be required. Individuals don’t/can’t own numbers. They may be associated with one, but that is up to the individual to make the association.”
No, they’re just talking about what will be stocked at the bookstore and sold as is online.
From that article:
Other numbers will be available, but only on personalized jerseys that feature a buyer-selected name, which cannot be that of a current or former player.
…
In the future, Wetherbee said, players will not be assigned the numbers of for-sale jerseys. (Mississippi State quarterback Dak Prescott, a Heisman Trophy favorite, happens to wear No. 15.) Wetherbee also said he hoped that the absence of player-specific jerseys would “take pressure off a kid.”
On the other hand:
Yet not all colleges have made the change. University representatives from Oregon and Southern California said their team jersey sales would continue as before. A search of U.S.C.’s online shop revealed jerseys with the No. 6 worn by quarterback Cody Kessler, another Heisman contender.
“The feedback we’ve received from current players and their families is they want jerseys with their numbers on them available to be sold,” Tim Tessalone, a U.S.C. spokesman, said. “We also have our players sign name-likeness permission forms. And for former players, we go directly to them for permission.”
If they sign away those rights specifically, at least they can’t come back and sue later.
“My understanding is that the school’s make very little (compared to other income sources) off merchandise sales. It’s basically school branded promotional material, from which Nike, Adidas, etc are the real profit makers.”
Yes.
The changes are not likely to have huge financial repercussions. Jersey sales constitute about 5 percent of the college apparel business, compared with 25 percent to 30 percent in professional leagues, according to the licensed sports merchandise retailer Fanatics, in part because top college athletes spend at most a few years on campus.
http://thelantern.com/2013/12/just-doing-it-ohio-state-nike-extend-46-million-brand-building-agreements/
Nike is contracted to pay OSU 12.5 percent of net sales on products it has the exclusive rights for. This includes all “authentic competition apparel,” such as jerseys. Royalty for all other OSU products Nike sells is set at 11 percent. OSU is guaranteed an annual minimum payment of $200,000 for the first seven years and $300,000 for the extended four years.
Each payment so far, however, has exceeded that minimum.
One eighth of net sales isn’t a lot. And at OSU, only 15% of total royalties goes to the athletic department.
LikeLike
Braxton will be wearing number 1.
LikeLike
Perhaps the first step in reversing (or at least slowing) the movement toward professionalized college sports.
They still lost O’Bannon (pending appeals) and are under threat from other lawsuits.
There’s no doubt the NCAA believed there was at least a possibility they’d lose at Northwestern, and that fear has pushed them into making some changes — or making them more quickly — than might otherwise have happened.
So the Northwestern case has had its salutary benefits, even if the idea of unionization was not a good one.
LikeLike
I would add that the NCAA didn’t exactly win in this case either. While the result certainly favored them, the board basically said they couldn’t certify the lone private school in the Big Ten because it would create competitive imbalance (as would be the case in certifying the handful of private schools in the NCAA, I think it’s ~18).
It still left the door open to athletes from public schools trying the same thing/more schools’ athletes getting together on it. I don’t see this result as legitimizing the NCAA’s or the schools’ positions that students are not employees.
LikeLike
Ross,
“I would add that the NCAA didn’t exactly win in this case either.”
I disagree.
“It still left the door open to athletes from public schools trying the same thing/more schools’ athletes getting together on it. I don’t see this result as legitimizing the NCAA’s or the schools’ positions that students are not employees.”
Multiple states have laws expressly barring student-athletes from forming unions at state schools. The NLRB doesn’t have jurisdiction over state schools.
LikeLike
The realities of business ensure that they won’t.
Either way, this ruling could make things interesting; the players are skilled labor and any sort of industrial action (no matter how illegal) would be very problematic for the university. The simple recourse of firing (or expelling) the students is unworkable.
LikeLike
What do you do when 5-10% of an endeavor threatens the remaining 90-95%? These are schools that have an athletic arm which receives a disproportionate amount of attention. Which is good..until it isn’t. I seriously believe if professionalism is forced that far more than just Stanford, Northwestern, and a few others will follow the Ivy model. If 70-80% do and play among themselves, that will be the top level of college FB. The others will be a different critter – a pro farm system.
I watch college baseball quite a bit, and some MLB. The extent of my following baseball minor leagues is to keep up with former college players.
LikeLike
As much as I enjoy college athletics, I’m not going to shed a tear if it’s done away with.
There is inequity in the world and it must be rectified.
Fiat justitia ruat caelum.
LikeLike
It wouldn’t be problematic at all. There are players lining up to get a scholarship at a major school or transfer in. Players that won’t play lose their scholarships instantly, creating space for others.
LikeLike
Here is a fun computer simulation of future conference expansion:
Buffalo gets the B1G prize.
LikeLike
The threat of the PAC’s NewCo is having an effect, even before/whether or not it starts. IMG triples payment to UCLA.
http://www.jmisports.com/ucla-deal-triples-in-img-renewal/
LikeLike
I believe they are working with ASU already.
LikeLike
While we’re on the subject of pure fantasy, i.e. kicking out members and B-12/ACC mergers, I’ll throw out my suggestion: all the FBS privates form their own league. Currently, there are 17 privates in the FBS.
Scenario #1 Notre Dame stays independent.
Privates East Division
BC
Syracuse
Wake Forest
Duke
Miami
Vandy
Northwestern
Tulane
Privates West Division
USC
Stanford
BYU
Baylor
TCU
SMU
Rice
Tulsa
Scenario #2 Notre Dame joins. Move Tulane to the West, put Notre Dame in the East, and add D-III Sewanee (former SEC member and the Episcopalians’ Notre Dame).
What to do with the open spots in the other conferences?
Dissolve the B-12 with Texas, Tx Tech, Oklahoma!, and OK State moving west to create a Pac-14.
Iowa State moves to the B1G, replacing Northwestern and keeping the Big 10 at 14.
West Virginia moves to the SEC replacing Vandy.
Kansas and K-State moves to the ACC, and UConn, Cincy and ________ (pick one of either UCF, USF, Houston or Memphis) moves up from the AAC to keep the ACC to 14.
There you have it. Four power conferences and 74 teams. Not quite as neat as four 16-team conferences, but nobody of substance gets left out. I know the B1G would never take Iowa State and the SEC probably wouldn’t ever take West VA, but this is how it could work. Also, this plan gets the school of the greatest all-time football team (1899 Sewanee Tigers) back in big-time football.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1899_Sewanee_Tigers_football_team
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“While we’re on the subject of pure fantasy, i.e. kicking out members and B-12/ACC mergers, I’ll throw out my suggestion: all the FBS privates form their own league. Currently, there are 17 privates in the FBS.
Scenario #1 Notre Dame stays independent.
…
Scenario #2 Notre Dame joins. Move Tulane to the West, put Notre Dame in the East, and add D-III Sewanee (former SEC member and the Episcopalians’ Notre Dame).”
I’d go with scenario 1 if I had to choose. Or even better, scenario 3: Form two conferences with the large privates in one and the Magnolia Conference for the rest.
Big Privates:
USC
BYU
Baylor
Syracuse
Miami
Notre Dame
Stanford
BC
Northwestern
9 teams means 8 games (plenty of room to keep your rivalries in the other games) and lots of national exposure for potential students.
Magnolia (aka Southern Ivy):
Wake Forest
Duke
Vandy
Tulane
TCU
SMU
Rice
Tulsa
“What to do with the open spots in the other conferences?
Dissolve the B-12 with Texas, Tx Tech, Oklahoma!, and OK State moving west to create a Pac-14.”
Plausible, or they could add two G5 schools (UH and UC).
“Iowa State moves to the B1G, replacing Northwestern and keeping the Big 10 at 14.”
The B10 won’t double up in IA. But if the 4 teams join the P14, then KU might be available to replace NW. Or maybe the B10 goes after some ACC team since they lost 6 of 15 members. Would UVA be ready to leave without the elite privates around? Would VT be an option?
“West Virginia moves to the SEC replacing Vandy.”
Very hard to imagine. More likely the ACC picks them up. The SEC would probably snare an ACC school instead, maybe UNC or NCSU to add a new state.
“Kansas and K-State moves to the ACC, and UConn, Cincy and ________ (pick one of either UCF, USF, Houston or Memphis) moves up from the AAC to keep the ACC to 14.”
I’d expect the ACC might take 3 former B12 schools left if KU and KSU are tied together (WV as #3). UCF and USF would replace Miami and get them back to 13. Add UConn to replace the school the SEC takes and they are back to 14.
“There you have it. Four power conferences and 74 teams. Not quite as neat as four 16-team conferences, but nobody of substance gets left out. I know the B1G would never take Iowa State and the SEC probably wouldn’t ever take West VA, but this is how it could work. Also, this plan gets the school of the greatest all-time football team (1899 Sewanee Tigers) back in big-time football.”
I somehow doubt that happens any time soon.
LikeLike
In pure fantasy, I like the 6X12 model
Big 10 Great Lakes-West: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern. East: Indiana, Purdue, Ohio St., Michigan, Michigan St., Penn St.
Big 10 Atlantic Coast-North: Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, Rutgers, UConn. South: Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Miami, South Florida.
SEC Gulf-West: Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss. St., Alabama, Auburn. East Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Arkansas.
SEC Atlantic-North: Missouri, Louisville, Virginia Tech, W. Virginia, Cincinnati, Georgia Tech. South: North Carolina St., Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina, FSU, Central Florida
Pac 12 North-Washington, Washington St., Oregon, Oregon St., Cal, Stanford. South-USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St., Colorado, UNLV.
Big12 East: Iowa St., Kansas, Kansas St., Oklahoma St., Oklahoma, Houston. West: Texas, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Utah, BYU.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be surprised at some point to see some sort of Magnolia League as costs keep escalating and corners keep being cut to qualify students. Some of these schools may decide scholarship football is not worth it.
Maybe even something like this:
West
Tulsa
SMU
Rice
Tulane
Air Force
Army
Navy
East
Vanderbilt
Duke
Wake Forest
Boston College
Syracuse
Northwestern
Miami
LikeLike
Chicago (B1G) and Tulane (SEC) quit big time football before there was big time TV money. TV money indirectly funds sports the P5 elite schools favor such as tennis, golf, lacrosse, and rowing. Since football is a required sport in P5 conferences, a school may go the Purdue route and just reduce the football spend to as little as they can get away with. That way the conference is still funding their sports program. This applies to all of your East schools. Go5 money is not that good, so there is not the financial dis-incentive to drop football at any of your West schools.
LikeLike
I love how people describe the universities’ “egos” and assume they are just like individual people…the motives that are ascribed to Texas (and to to UNC and Notre Dame), that they somehow manage to dominate their peer schools and rule with an iron fist, is pretty ridiculous.
LikeLike
Big schools generally are run by people, often with big egos.
There is a reason some schools are considered kings, and it’s not always strictly about on field success.
LikeLike
Big schools generally are run by people, often with big egos.
There is a reason some schools are considered kings, and it’s not always strictly about on field success.
One of the better posts made on this blog. Simple and to the point.
LikeLike
Along similar lines, how about the Big Public:
EAST
Virginia
North Carolina
Michigan
Georgia Tech
Penn State
Florida
Ohio State
WEST
Cal
UCLA
Illinois
Wisconsin
Washington
Texas
Texas A&M
With the exception of A&M, these are the 13 highest ranked (per USNews) public schools with FBS programs. A&M comes in a notch below UConn (#14), Clemson, Purdue, Georgia, Maryland, and Pitt, which are all tied for 15th. Still, A&M is the highest ranked “western” school and gets the invite to balance the divisions.
LikeLike
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/8/18/9123503/ncaa-football-playoff-2015-contenders-schedules?_ga=1.64910191.1978633752.1320096442
A ranking of the OOC SOS for the top 30 teams from 2 different measures (Vegas odds or Bill Connelly’s preseason rankings), so 34 total teams. The schedules are ranked based on the average S&P+ for the opponents. The difficulty drops off really quickly.
1. Stanford – 46
2. Texas – 51.7
3. Michigan State – 59
4. Georgia Tech – 60
5. USC – 67.7
#6-15 are between 68 and 80.
#16-25 are between 81 and 90.
#26-34 are between 95 and 114.
Considering there are only 128 teams in I-AA, that’s pretty sad.
LikeLike
Here is a link to the new ESPN 30 for 30 short film entitled “Delaney”.
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=13417657
Joe Delaney was from my hometown. He was the AFC Offensive Rookie of the Year in 1981 for the Kansas City Chiefs and died tragically in 1983 while trying to save three boys who were drowning. Joe couldn’t swim.
During the players’ strike in 1982, I was a Junior on my high school’s football team, and Joe never missed a practice. He was there offering encouragement and coaching the running backs and wide receivers.
Joe’s funeral was held at my high school’s gym on the 4th of July. 3000 people crowded inside the gym that probably had the seating capacity of 2000. Many were standing outside and couldn’t get in. I was inside and sat next to Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt. I also met Vice President Bush.
I didn’t know Joe well, but I knew him well enough to know that the gushing praise he received in the documentary is well deserved. Joe Delaney is and always will be my hometown’s greatest son.
LikeLike
Haven’t been on here for a while but just enjoyed the last few posts from Frank. I was intrigued by a comment that KU has perhaps signed a nondisclosure with BIG. That probably makes some sense, either officially or unofficially given the Missouri experience of running their mouths prematurely.
The general idea of KU joining the BIG has grown on me. At first I thought it was a non-starter – bad football team in a small state. Thinking strategically, it makes more sense. Probably two strategies for the next BIG expansion: west toward UT or east toward UNC. KU would be a geographic bridge to UT/OU, and it would be a national BB brand to excite UNC, Duke and/or UVa.
Very interesting to see what the next BIG TV contract looks like.
For those of you noting that Purdue is spending the bare minimum on D1 football… They just pulled even with UM and the beloved Illini in USNRW graduate engineering rankings. I think Mitch is more concerned about that ranking.
LikeLike
Would you also like KU being paired with UConn?
LikeLike
No thank you. Get back to me when they have an on-campus stadium, are not in the middle of nowhere in a small state, have a strong football program and have AAU-level academics.
LikeLike
I agree with Brian: UConn satisfies none of the B1G’s known priorities. Kansas does at least satisfy some of them.
LikeLike
I think the average Purdue alum is more concerned with those rankings as well. Glad to hear about the improvement. I’m happy so far for the most part with Mitch. He has novel ideas on how to fund an education both from the student and the institution’s perspective.
LikeLike
Having two graduate engineering degrees from Purdue, I’m on board with Mitch’s priorities, too.
As to Purdue’s minimal investments in sports, the Kings need Princes and Princesses to beat up on. In all these fantasy (actually nightmare) conferences with only Kings, everyone would have 3 or 4 losses, and no one would get to the playoffs.
They also serve who roll over and play dead.
LikeLike
They need to get back to at least being the quarterback school of the B1G. The Princes and Frogs like Purdue/Stanford by virtue of having to play from behind much of time provided a perfect training ground for the Sunday game.
LikeLike
Academic and athletic excellence are not an either/or choice, especially with all the cash that Purdue gets from the Big 10. NFL is an all King conference and that seems to work pretty well.
LikeLike
Unless you’re suggesting all other college conferences close up shop there is no comparison to be made with the single National Football League (not conference).
I seem to recall a time when the AFL was considered a non factor, and then needed to be absorbed to eliminate competition. But obviously they were inferior and decades from being competitive…until the third Super Bowl.
LikeLike
I think Stanford would be the prime example here.
LikeLike
KU would be a geographic bridge to UT/OU, and it would be a national BB brand to excite UNC, Duke and/or UVa.
Your first point is the stronger of the two: If the B1G adds Kansas, it will probably be because it is also adding Oklahoma and/or Texas.
The B1G was willing to add Maryland, in part because of the possibility that maybe UVA and UNC would come later. That wasn’t the only reason for adding Maryland, and I’m confident the league believes the Terps are valuable on their own, even if no further expansion ever happens. In KU’s case, I think the league has to know it is getting Oklahoma or Texas. Otherwise, I am doubtful that KU brings enough value by itself.
As to your second point: If UNC, UVA, or Duke ever joins the B1G, I don’t think it’ll be because they get to play Kansas every year in basketball. That rivalry would be a nice cherry on top of the cake, but wouldn’t really drive anyone’s decision.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1576558.html
The FWAA announced their 75th Anniversary All-America Team, with the greatest 75 players of all time (1st, 2nd and 3rd string at all positions including specialists). Here are the 1st teamers.
FIRST TEAM OFFENSE
QB Roger Staubach, Navy
RB Archie Griffin, Ohio State
RB Herschel Walker, Georgia
WR Larry Fitzgerald, Pittsburgh
WR Jerry Rice, Mississippi Valley State
TE Keith Jackson, Oklahoma
OL John Hannah, Alabama
OL Orlando Pace, Ohio State
OL Will Shields, Nebraska
OL Ron Yary, USC
C Dave Rimington, Nebraska
FIRST TEAM DEFENSE
DT Lee Roy Selmon, Oklahoma
DT Ndamukong Suh, Nebraska
DE Leon Hart, Notre Dame
DE Ted Hendricks, Miami
LB Tommy Nobis, Texas
LB Mike Singletary, Baylor
LB Derrick Thomas, Alabama
DB Ronnie Lott, USC
DB Deion Sanders, Florida State
DB Jack Tatum, Ohio State
DB Charles Woodson, Michigan
FIRST TEAM SPECIALISTS
P Ray Guy, Southern Miss
K Kevin Butler, Georgia
RS Johnny Rodgers, Nebraska
LikeLike
Do you think Archie belongs that high?
He is the only one with two Heismans, but I can think of a lot of running backs I would put ahead of him. Barry Sanders not being on the first team is pretty hard to justify.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Do you think Archie belongs that high?
He is the only one with two Heismans, but I can think of a lot of running backs I would put ahead of him. Barry Sanders not being on the first team is pretty hard to justify.”
I know I’m biased, but I’ll say it depends on the criteria. Being the only player with 2 Heisman Trophies says a lot.
1. He’s still #7 on the all-time rushing list (if you include bowl stats for all players) and he played over 40 years ago. He only had 46 games to get his 5589 yards and he did it in just 924 carries (6.0 ypc) because he shared the load with Cornelius Greene and Pete Johnson (greatest FB ever). His 6.0 ypc is better than Dayne, Dorsett, White and Prentice who are above him on the list. The only two above him that did better were Ricky Williams and DeAngelo Williams, both at 6.2 ypc. DeAngelo played in CUSA, so I dismiss his stats a little bit.
2. You also have to factor in the changes in the game since then. Woody played the most conservative offense possible, and everyone knew Archie was getting the ball. Comparing their senior years, UT threw for over 2900 yards while OSU threw for less than 1100.
3. Archie’s TD totals were down because Woody preferred to give Pete Johnson the ball near the goal line. Johnson had 56 career TDs as a full back, good for #16 on the all-time rushing TD list (including bowls). Nobody else was splitting the carries with a player like that.
4. Archie still holds the records for most 100-yard rushing games in a career (34) and the longest consecutive streak (31).
5. His teams finished #3, #3, #3 and #4 in the final coaches poll, so he was always playing with pressure on the team to perform (no stat padding).
He wasn’t as dynamic as some, but he was more consistent for longer. You also have to ignore the NFL.
LikeLike
Big 10 was well reeprsented with Archie, Pace, Tatum and Woodson on 1st team……John Hicks and Calvin Jones on 2nd team….and A. Carter, Spielman, Bubba Smith, and Dave Brown on 3rd team.
Biggest Big 10 omission to me is Hopalong Cassidy….2 time UAA, Heisman winner, Maxwell winner, 2 time SN Player of the Year. Others with a good case: Dick Wildung, Leo Nomellini, Paul Giel, Alan Ameche, Leroy Keyes, Bob Ferguson, Bobby Bell, Alex Karras. Keyes and Ferguson each finished 2nd & 3rd in the Heisman voting as Jr/Sr Karris and Bell were 2nd and 3rd, respectively, as linemen their Sr years.
Bigeest omission overall was OJ.
LikeLike
Butkis was also 2nd team…
Another Big 10 omission: George Webster
I would argue as follows: Butkis should have been 1st team. He pretty much turned around the Illinois team and took them to the RB. Not many C/LBs could have done that. They weren’t too good before he got there….and they weren’t too good after he left.
Cassidy should have been 1st team, perhaps as a DB.
Bell and Karras should have been on there somewhere. Also Webster.
Woodson is too high. Calvin Jones is too high. Dave Brown shouldn’t be there. Spielman is fine, but there are 3-4 other OSU LBs who were just as good.
LikeLike
Woodson too high?? Did you not see him with your own eyes?
LikeLike
no Grange + no Butkus = no credibility
LikeLike
drwillini,
“no Grange + no Butkus = no credibility”
1. Butkus is on the 2nd team.
2. It’s the 75th Anniversary team, so it only goes back to 1941 when the FWAA was founded.
LikeLike
Tommy Nobis redefined linebacker the way Johnny Bench redefined the catcher in baseball.
Singletary and Thomas were awesome. 2nd team is where Butkus belongs as a linebacker.
LikeLike
Its also clear from that article that there was no criteria. The author argues that Tebow should have been 1st team because of what his teams achieved. To me, Tebow was the only serious flaw on the first 3 teams. I would have picked some different running backs (basically considering the same people he did-OJ, Earl, Ricky, maybe Dayne), but there are good arguments for everyone on there.
I probably would pick:
1st Barry (greatest of all time in college), Herschel
2nd Ricky, Tony
3rd OJ, Earl just edging out Doak, Archie, Bo and Ron.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Its also clear from that article that there was no criteria.”
Yes, it was just people voting based on their personal criteria.
“The author argues that Tebow should have been 1st team because of what his teams achieved. To me, Tebow was the only serious flaw on the first 3 teams.”
I would’ve put Frazier above Tebow, personally. Tebow was unique, but that was more a function of the offense he played in than him being that great.
“I would have picked some different running backs (basically considering the same people he did-OJ, Earl, Ricky, maybe Dayne), but there are good arguments for everyone on there.
I probably would pick:
1st Barry (greatest of all time in college), Herschel
2nd Ricky, Tony
3rd OJ, Earl just edging out Doak, Archie, Bo and Ron.”
I think OJ DQ’d himself by murdering someone. Barry was a great talent but he only had one great season. To me this team should look at their whole career and Barry had less than 1000 yards in his first 2 seasons combined. If it was picking on just single seasons, of course Barry had the greatest year for a RB ever. Archie had a much higher ypc than Herschel (6.0 vs 5.3) for what it’s worth.
LikeLike
CBS Sports has compiled a cost of attendance database.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25275374/-16-cbs-sports-fbs-college-football-cost-of-attendance-database
Highest payout per P5 conference.
ACC – Florida State $6018
B1G – Wisconsin $4916
B-12 – Texas Tech $4820
P-12 – UCLA $5941
SEC – Tennessee $5666
LikeLike
These COA figures look odd. Ohio State University officially estimates that the total cost of attendance for an instate undergraduate student is at least $24,000 per year. That includes tuition and fees at $10,037, board and room at $11,666, books and supplies, entertainment and miscellany. Out-of-state students, many of the football and basketball players, pay $27,356 per year in tuition and fees alone. They pay the same $11,666 for board and room.
I assume the sports scholarships cover tuition, fees, board and room, so what is the COA measuring?
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“I assume the sports scholarships cover tuition, fees, board and room, so what is the COA measuring?”
Miscellaneous costs like an occasional trip home, haircuts, laundry, etc. It’s long been a number reported to the DOEd.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“CBS Sports has compiled a cost of attendance database.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25275374/-16-cbs-sports-fbs-college-football-cost-of-attendance-database
Highest payout per P5 conference.
ACC – Florida State $6018
B1G – Wisconsin $4916
B-12 – Texas Tech $4820
P-12 – UCLA $5941
SEC – Tennessee $5666″
And they wrote another piece about it.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25275500/cost-of-attendance-results-the-chase-to-legally-pay-college-players
The SEC has eight schools whose highest average new scholarship amount is at least $4,000 — more than any other conference. The AAC, Big 12 and Sun Belt have six schools each at that amount, followed by the Big Ten (five); ACC, C-USA and Mountain West (three each); Pac-12 (two); and MAC (one).
Number of schools with COA > $4000 (many didn’t provide info or don’t give COA):
B12 – 6/9 = 67%
SEC – 8/13 = 62%
SB – 6/10 = 60%
AAC – 6/11 = 55%
B10 – 5/13 = 38%
ACC – 3/9 = 33%
CUSA – 3/10 = 30%
MWC – 3/11 = 27%
P12 – 2/11 = 18%
MAC – 1/9 = 11%
Apparently the south is very expensive to live in while attending school. Who knew? The only justification would be the cost of travel, and I don’t really buy that as a full explanation.
Range of COAs:
ACC – $2000 – $6018
B10 – $2354 – $4916
B12 – $2430 – $4820
P12 – $1580 – $5941
SEC – $3528 – $5666
LikeLike
Not sure what COA measures, but Cincinnati is twice as high as Ohio State. Toledo and Bowling Green also have higher COA. On Campus for UCLA = $5242 while USC = $1580; so a $3662 difference going 14 miles across town.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25276912/chris-peterson-fires-back-at-art-briles-i-told-you-about-ukwuachus-past
This Baylor case is getting uglier.
A former Boise player transferred to Baylor and then committed a sexual assault there (he was convicted last night). Not only has Baylor been accused of botching the investigation, but Boise has said they told Baylor about the player’s violent past (he was accused of beating his girlfriend). Boise even refused to sign a waiver allowing him to play at Baylor right away after kicking him off their team. Art Briles came out today and said he didn’t know about the guy’s past, but Chris Petersen has fired back by saying he definitely told Briles all about the guy’s past.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25278340/baylor-scandal-may-force-big-12-to-discuss-sec-transfer-rule-regarding-sexual-assault
Due to this case, the B12 ADs may discuss adding a transfer rule similar to the SEC’s that prevent athletes with a history of sexual violence from transferring into a school. I think that would be a good policy for all P5 conferences. Let athletes get a second chance at G5 schools or below so they are paying some price for their conduct.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25280340/big-12-ads-favor-sec-transfer-rule-banning-transfers-with-serious-misconduct-in-past
The B12 ADs voted to recommend a rule barring transfers in of players with histories of serious violent or sexual misconduct. Now the top committee (presidents, ADs, faculty advisers) has to refine and approve it.
LikeLike
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/08/21/hack-ashley-madison-website-affairs-reveals-many-edu-addresses
I’m not sure what it means that so many B10 .edu email addresses showed up in the Ashley Madison hacking data.
There are some caveats though:
Several important cautions about the data: Ashley Madison does not verify email addresses, although the advantage of the website was supposed to be confidentiality, and communication between would-be adulterers would have been difficult with a totally fake address. Many colleges and universities offer email addresses for alumni as well as students and current and former employees, so it’s unclear what percentage of these addresses are those of employees. But many colleges also have multiple addresses for email, such as “engineering.name.edu.” Inside Higher Ed’s tally does not include those additional email addresses.
LikeLike
On the other hand, this breakdown by state has AL a clear #1 in dollars spent per capita on Ashley Madison.
LikeLike
With West Virginia in last place these thoughts are possible
#1 poor state
#2 no internet
#3 no computers
#4 high odds you wind up related to who you get fixed up to cheat with
LikeLike
Well if the WV bloggers have real information, maybe the reason would be that everybody knows everyone, everyone talks and you would definitely get caught!
LikeLike
If we referred to the Great Book of Stereotypes, the reason would be there is no need to sign up to a site to cheat, when someone can just cheat at the family reunion like everybody else.
LikeLike
Ha!
LikeLike
When Big Ten basketball teams travel to College Park this winter to face Mark and Brenda’s likely Top 10 teams, they will find a new flag-themed (but relatively understated) design at xfinity Center. Take a look: https://twitter.com/rollininDOHerty/status/634498021867261957/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
LikeLike
Like many (most?) people that aren’t UMD fans or from MD, I find the use of MD flag to be an eyesore generally. I suppose that does count as understated for UMD since they didn’t cover the whole floor with it. I think the constantly changing colors along the sidelines will make it harder on refs to make proper calls, though.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1577320.html
The 15 games that will decide who makes the playoff, with a paragraph describing each game.
I’ll rearrange them by date:
14. Alabama vs. Wisconsin, Sept. 5
4. Oregon at Michigan State, Sept. 12
11. Auburn at LSU, Sept. 19
5. Alabama at Georgia, Oct. 3
9. USC at Notre Dame, Oct. 17
12. Florida State at Clemson, Nov. 7
8. Georgia at Auburn, Nov. 14
13. Oklahoma at Baylor, Nov. 14
7. LSU at Alabama, Nov. 21
6. USC at Oregon, Nov. 21
2. Michigan State at Ohio State, Nov. 21
1. Baylor at TCU, Nov. 27
3. Alabama at Auburn, Nov. 28
15. UCLA at USC, Nov. 28
It’s good to see such a strong November. October is a little weak, though.
Some of these are likely to change as teams lose or the opponent disappoints (7 games involve AL or AU, for example).
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13463272/how-former-san-francisco-49ers-chris-borland-retirement-change-nfl-forever
A long piece about Chris Borland and the concussion issue.
LikeLike
http://collegefootball.ap.org/poll
The preseason AP poll is out and OSU set a record for the highest percentage of 1st place votes by being a unanimous #1 (the old record was 58 of 60, or 96.7%). Of course, OSU has never won a national title in a year it was preseason #1 (this is the 8th time).
1. OSU
2. TCU
3. AL
4. Baylor
5. MSU
6. AU
7. OR
8. USC
9. UGA
10. FSU
…
20. WI
Hope springs eternal:
31. PSU
34. NE
39. MI
AL’s streak of being #1 or #2 preseason ends at 5 years, the second longest such streak ever. You have to respect the run Saban has had lately even if you have some questions about his methods.
ND is #11.
The poll is more balanced than in previous years, but the SEC still leads in teams ranked:
Top 12:
SEC – 3
ACC, B10, B12, P12 – 2
Ind. – 1
Total:
SEC – 8
P12 – 6
ACC, B10, B12 – 3
Other – 2
It looks like the SEC and P12 should really be fighting for the top conference overall.
LikeLike
Some AP poll trivia:
Most weeks as #1:
1. OU – 101
2. ND – 98
3. OSU – 96
4. USC – 91
5. AL – 73
1st time ever UF, UT and NE are all unranked preseason.
On average over the last 5 years, 8 teams drop out of the poll during a season.
Since 1976, 7 teams have gotten at least 90% of the #1 preseason votes and none won the title. 1975 OU did win it which is the only other time a team had 90%.
Clemson has finished in the final poll in the same place as or higher than in the preseason poll for 4 straight seasons.
Since 1998, only once has the entire preseason top 10 made the final top 25.
LikeLike
A correction: 1st time since 1957 that none of UF, UT or NE are in the preseason poll.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1097657.html
More trivia:
The all-time leaders in AP final poll points (gaps indicate sizable jumps in pts total):
1 Oklahoma 995
2 Ohio State 966
3 Alabama 964
4 Michigan 943
5 Notre Dame 924
6 USC 795
7 Nebraska 783
8 Texas 772
9 Tennessee 678
10 Penn State 648
11 LSU 602
12 Auburn 554
13 Georgia 548
14 Florida State 532
15 Miami 511
16 UCLA 503
17 Florida 486
18 Arkansas 439
19 Michigan State 423
20 Texas A&M 365
21 Georgia Tech 343
T22 Ole Miss 331
T22 Washington 331
24 Clemson 328
25 Wisconsin 322
26 Iowa 302 (just FYI)
LikeLike
This begs the question, which of these preseason top 10 teams is most likely to be unranked by season’s end? My vote: Baylor or Oregon
LikeLike
Baylor possibly. Oregon has graduate transfer Vernon Adams in house now, and assuming no injury he’ll likely be in Heisman contention by season’s end. May take a few weeks to get going, but if/when he does it may be Mariota, who?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lots of teams have QB questions. UGA is really struggling to pick a starter (I’m in Atlanta so it gets lots of coverage). UGA also plays AL and AU in crossover games as well as GT to end the year.
FSU lost a lot of talent plus has to play at Clemson, at GT and at UF.
USC will have to deal with a deep P12 South plus OR and a highly ranked ND team.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1577741.html
A breakdown of the poll. Here a couple of key points:
There are different levels of quarterback derbies, but four key teams – No. 1 Ohio State, No. 3 Alabama, No. 7 Oregon, No. 9 Georgia, and to some extent, No. 10 Florida State – still have to settle in. 14 of the top 19 teams – Ohio State, Alabama, Baylor, Auburn, Oregon, Georgia, Florida State, Notre Dame, UCLA, LSU, Arizona State, Ole Miss and Oklahoma – are either going into the late part of fall camp with a new starting quarterback, or are still trying to figure out who that main man is going to be.
…
Keep an eye on this. No, the CFP committee isn’t going to care who’s ranked where in the midseason, but they’re part of the whole process and they might have to at least answer the questions if the AP and Coaches Polls have things going a certain way. Boise State is starting out the season ranked 23rd in the AP and 24th in the Coaches. As always happens, the polls fluctuate based on performance – win and move up, lose and move down. So if Boise State can come up with a few mildly splashy victories against Washington, BYU and Virginia, and if they can just keep on staying unbeaten, it’ll move up and up and up. What matters is that the Broncos are ranked at all – they’re getting the most respect of any Group of 5er.
LikeLike
I love Realignment Risk as much as the next poster, but I think a lot of us are too obsessed with getting to 4 x 16.
I’ve been trying to think like we traditionally do, and here’s what I got looking ahead to another round in the mid-2020s:
1. In this round the major motivating factor has been TV money, either in conference contract deals or to expand conference owned networks.
2. Cable TV subscriber rates and advertising has been the source of this windfall.
3. College football, and to a lesser extent basketball will continue to gain ad revenue because they will remain a major way to gain male 18-45 eyeballs in live programming
4. A la cart cable and cord cutting will hurt cable deals, but will probably be a wash if the WWL and the Conference networks can charge a decent amount to stream the games as either a package or as PPV.
5. As such, the numbers will probably be in the same ballpark as the numbers we’re looking at now, adjusted for inflation.
6. There is no need to expand past 12, *unless* that school adds value equal to what each school would be getting without expansion.
7. That the next round will again focus on football schools and TV ratings as opposed to SOS and/or travel.
8. That the B1G, SEC, and PAC will be predators, and the rest prey.
9. That Texas and ND opinions will not change and will hope to maintain status quo ante.
I think the attractive candidate list for those three will be:
Texas, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, UNC (assuming they don’t get DP’d), FSU, Clemson, possibly Miami and then it gets pretty iffy.
What I think is most likely to happen:
1. PAC, hurting for options, will make a play for Texas, Oklahoma, and two others of Texas choice (guessing TT and either OSU or Houston). Texas won’t take the deal, not wanting to play in the PST, forcing the PAC to stand pat.
2. SEC will reach out to Texas, Oklahoma, UNC, and tell them all they are looking to go to 16, who wants in. Oklahoma will want in, but pol considerations will mean that they need to bring OSU. SEC won’t be interested in OSU (western division of TAMU, OU, OSU, ARK, LSU, Mizzou, Ole Miss, MSU will be horribly imbalanced, and of lesser interest to TV). UNC also has political issues, but a lot less interest in the SEC. SEC will wait to see how ACC negotiations go, hoping to shake something loose.
3. BIG will announce they might be interested in expansion to see what shakes loose, like last time, but this time I don’t know if there will be any interest from even a Rutgers level candidate until the offers for the new contracts come in.
4. Both the ACC and Big XII contracts come in and will leave even the kings in those conferences well behind the preds. This will be a problem, esp. for FSU, Clemson, and OU. ND’s deal with NBC will probably be better than what the ACC and Big XII get, but still behind the B1G and SEC.
5. FSU and Clemson, actually probably every former SoCon ACC school, will put out feelers to see where those options are. SEC will be interested, but will have some political issues with almost all of the Eastern schools. UNC will put out feelers, but still will have issues with SEC (although probably less than they do now) and who knows how the presidents in the B1G will react to UNC given their academic issues. UNC may need/want to bring friends, and the B1G can accommodate more than most thanks to the BTN, but more than 1 NC school will likely be a dealbreaker.
6. Caught between a rock and a hard place, ND, Texas, FSU, and others start working on a deal. To be fair, this is kinda what happened in western college hockey after BTHC came to be…at least that was my inspiration.
7. The following schools announce they will be forming a new conference, the Big XII
Texas, TTech, OU, Ok. St., KU, WVU, FSU, Clemson, UNC, NCSU, UVA, and Pitt. with it’s own Network, probably part owned by Comcast.
8. ND will play 5 games in a deal similar to the ACC
9. The ACC will backfill to 12 with UCONN, Cincy, USF, UCF, ECU most likely, or go basketball focus just adding UCONN, Cincy and Temple.
10. The Big XII will sell their name and keep the NCAA shares sorta like the Big East. Probably backfill with Tulsa, SMU, Memphis, Tulane, and possibly BYU and another school. Most likely rename themselves the SWC. A lot depends on how well the Indy thing is working for BYU.
It’s late and I’m tired. Have at it, gentlemen. What did I miss? Where did I mess up?
LikeLike
Just realized that would shake loose VT for the SEC, and WVA or potentially NCSU if the SEC was interested. Not sure if Miami or any other remaining team would be of interest to the SEC. The neo-Big XII would probably then go with BYU if interested and another western school, but I don’t know who. ISU is awful, any other Texas school doesn’t really grow the pie, and an eastern school will be a travel nightmare…
OK, I’m going to bed for real this time.
LikeLike
I don’t think the network thing will be a difference maker indefinitely. I also don’t think the Tier I & II revenues for the 5 conferences will be that much different. It is insignificant relative to the difference in total revenues between schools.
Concussions, COA, pay for play, declining student interest, professionalization of the stadiums (lower capacities with more suites and high $ seats)-these are the things that will be a bigger impact than differences in TV revenues between conferences. And I think those things will tend to lead to the status quo due to uncertainty. It will lead conferences to be less aggressive about expansion and will lead the schools to be focused more on that than moving around.
LikeLike
What did I miss? Where did I mess up?
It’s a lot more plausible than most of the fantasy scenarios that people offer up.
There is no need to expand past 12, *unless* that school adds value equal to what each school would be getting without expansion.
I don’t think any stable conference expands to break even. Expansion targets will need to bring revenues that raise per-school payouts, not merely equal them. Anytime you expand, you dilute traditionall rivalries. The reasons for doing so therefore need to be positive, not merely neutral.
LikeLike
I suspect the ACC left money on the table this past go around by allowing Raycom Sports a piece of the action. Depending on how the media market transforms over the next decade, I would not be surprised if they can make Big 12 or even Pac-12 money after their contract starts in 2027.
I just don’t see the next expansion resulting in a conference being 50% current ACC teams and 50% current Big 12 teams. Either Iowa State or Wake Forest will be left behind, but not both.
I really appreciate a fantasy expansion scenario that doesn’t sound like fantasy football drafts; I agree that the Pac-12 is either expanding with Texas or standing pat.
LikeLike
Possible, but I don’t see why UVa wouldn’t join the B1G in that scenario?
LikeLike
@ FLP
Most ACC schools wouldn’t bite on this scenario.
Miami, VT, Duke and GT bring more value than many of the schools selected to your new conference. FSU would likely insist on bringing Miami; UNC would demand Duke’s inclusion; UVA would push for VT; and Clemson would partner with Duke, UVA, UNC & FSU to take care of GT.
If the ACC schools can’t keep most of their core together, they’d probably look at the BIG and SEC as preferable destinations. For example, UVA/UNC/Duke/GT try for BIG expansion while VT/NCS/Clemson/FSU try the SEC.
Remember that FSU was unwilling to jump to the B12 a couple of years ago. Texas didn’t want all the travel that PAC membership would entail. Creating such a geographically dispersed conference seems short sighted.
LikeLike
“Texas didn’t want all the travel that PAC membership would entail.”
Uh, no. UT was a PAC member in ’10 but for the all media rights to the conference requirement.
LikeLike
Per Texas AD DeLoss Dodd during a speech to boosters, one of the reasons against joining the PAC was the increased travel required of student athletes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Psst. Buddy, over here. I got a bridge I’ll sell ya.
LikeLike
Well the President said something similar in the news conference after deciding not to go. He said they were working hard to minimize travel and then realized they had simply recreated the existing conference. It wasn’t worth it.
The President also made a comment regarding the Big 10 about not wanting to fly the women’s softball team all over the Midwest.
LikeLike
Three for the price of two…
LikeLike
LHN didn’t exist in June 2010. Texas had no clue how much it was worth. The Pac 12 networks with their sub-networks give Texas the exposure they want. After all, Texas was willing to create a network with A&M. Now in 2011 when Texas knew they were getting $15 million a year instead of something like $3 million, it was a bigger barrier.
If you listened to Powers and Dodds in the press conference, you would see they were too exhausted to make things up. But you are stuck on believing internet fan fiction. Message board posters who know nothing tell the truth and all officials lie. Whatever. You’re the one who is pretty easy to sell a bridge to.
LikeLike
Don’t be so sensitive. I’m not saying UT made the wrong decision, but they were simply trotting out the standard platitudes justifying their decision. A different set would have been used had they made a different decision. I watched Powers, Dodds, and Mack Brown huddling at the CWS. I doubt they were hashing out women’s soccer travel issues while OU, OkSU, and TT were researching westward airline schedules.
You don’t think it would have happened is the PAC had let UT retain T3 rights? Frankly, you might be in debt to aTm that the move didn’t happen as they supposedly let Scott know UT was ready to move, and then fight out the rights to the conference deal after the fact, assuming the public move to P16 would not be able to be cancelled. Yes the LHN didn’t exist yet, but it’s possibility (and who owned/controls it) was the deal breaker.
LikeLike
What love does FSU have for private Miami with its bandwagon fans. I figured FSU’d be more for Clemson since they are both public football first schools and have been linked in Big XII expansion rumors as far back as I remember. Same thing with Duke and UNC. UNC is the weakest football brand of the potential tentpoles behind Texas, OU, and FSU, so I doubt they are in a position to demand they get to bring two friends…especially since Duke has minimal football history and who knows what will happen to their basketball since they lack history before Coach K. UVA is another non-football power, and I kinda doubt they have the political juice to get VT in, again. Besides, there’s not a lot of history at VPI before Beamer, so who knows how good they’ll be.
Georgia Tech is a great CIC-B1G add, but I don’t see how a team that doesn’t bring Georgia or even ATL helps UT-Austin or the Sooners.
What I was thinking is that Texas brings TT, OU brings the cowboys, and FSU and Clemson are the obvious ACC additions. All are public schools and a have a football focus. All but OSU have history. That’s six of twelve right there, and a fairly strong core. I doubt that a still fairly southern UNC alumni will want to throw in with the B1G, and the Academics will not want to throw in with the SEC anymore than they did 50yrs ago. UNC is a good enough brand they can probably bring a friend, and politically speaking they will probably need to bring NCSU over Duke. Now I’m at 8.
Miami’s out because they’re too risky. The cane’s are great when they are doing well…until they get caught. They might deemphasize because they can’t keep up with UF and FSU without scandals. They might get the Death Penalty. And they may just settle in as the #3 Florida team in the long term. Who knows? They’ve never really panned yet for the ACC. But potentially being a Vandy/Northwestern/Stanford? I don’t know if you risk one of the 4 remaining slots when you got 16 teams still in the mix.
Looking at the other 15, you can toss small private schools with minimal history (WFU, Duke, Baylor), other teams with bottom 20 all-time win %ages in small states that aren’t the flagship (KSU, ISU, U of L), and other teams with small/non-rabid fanbases (TCU, BC, GT). Now we’re down to WVU, Kansas, Pitt, Syracuse, UVA and VT.
Kansas has basketball, a decent # of TVs and will not be a football threat, so why not?
Pitt is closer than Syracuse, and probably better recruiting area so Pitt over ‘Cuse
WVU is a rival to Pitt, close to the ACC and a former BXII member so they probably haven’t burned all their couches. Bridges. I meant bridges.
UVa has little history (20th worst all-time win percentage of schools in the Power5), but is politically awesome, and it seems everyone would prefer the Hoos over the Hokies.
That’s how I chose those teams.
LikeLike
Duke has minimal football history and who knows what will happen to their basketball since they lack history before Coach K.
That’s a bit like saying that Penn State had no (relevant) football history before Paterno, nor FSU before Bowden. Once a major program has been built and sustained for that long, it is pretty unlikely to fall into pieces after the “founder” has left. King programs have build-in structural advantages that don’t go away when the coach retires.
LikeLike
I disagree. Penn State and Florida State are large public institutions in large and talent-rich states. Duke is a private school and MCBB is a coach’s game especially in a one-and-done world. Duke seems to have more in common with San Francisco, Holy Cross, and every team ni the Big East than say UK, IU, UCLA, or Kansas.
LikeLike
Penn State and Florida State are large public institutions in large and talent-rich states.
Numerous programs fit that description, but don’t have a winning tradition. You don’t get that “automatically”. It has to be created, which Paterno and Bowden did at those at PSU and FSU respectively, and K did at Duke.
Once created, and sustained over a long period, that tradition tends to endure, because the school has structural advantages that go beyond one individual.This is true, whether the institution is public or private.
You can have private “kings” (like Notre Dame and USC in football), and public kings (like Ohio State and Alabama in football). Granted, most of the kings are public, but the fact that this status tends to endure applies to either kind.
LikeLike
Its also not true. Just because you are too young to remember before Coach K doesn’t mean there wasn’t a time before. Duke was in a couple of championship games before Coach K came around, losing to UCLA in the 60s and UK in 78. They were good well before Coach K.
LikeLike
FLP_NDRox,
“What love does FSU have for private Miami with its bandwagon fans.”
They are huge rivals. They’ve played every year since 1969 and 57 times since 1955.
“I figured FSU’d be more for Clemson since they are both public football first schools and have been linked in Big XII expansion rumors as far back as I remember.”
I think that link was more from the B12 POV. Also, Miami is more likely to worry about academics and their ties to the other top ACC schools than FSU or Clemson is.
“What I was thinking is that Texas brings TT, OU brings the cowboys, and FSU and Clemson are the obvious ACC additions. All are public schools and a have a football focus. All but OSU have history.”
TT has football history? I’d say OkSU has slightly more.
“Looking at the other 15, you can toss small private schools with minimal history (WFU, Duke, Baylor), other teams with bottom 20 all-time win %ages in small states that aren’t the flagship (KSU, ISU, U of L),”
UL is nowhere near a bottom 20 W%. They are #66 and above 50%. That’s not great, but it’s better than you make it sound. I’m fine with you cutting them, just correcting the facts.
LikeLike
Creating a new conference whose unifying glue is football-first athletics would never sell to UNC or UVA.
UT, OU, FSU, possibly ND, are your only available tent-poles for a broad-geography football-first conference.
UNC and UVA emphasize basketball and Olympic sports…and boast about their southern & academic heritage. Dropping natural rivals like Duke and GT, in order to play at Texas Tech and Ok State (or get clobbered by UT & OU) isn’t plausible. These schools have options; a dimished ACC, or an expanded BIG/SEC are all better alternatives for UNC and UVA.
Interestingly, the new (UT, OU, FSU, ND) conference would make the SEC seem more attractive to UNC. Academics, athletics, and geography would all be better aligned with UNC’s preferences.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/08/23/college-football-tv-roundtable-espn-college-gameday-fox
A roundtable about all things TV-related in CFB.
LikeLike
As many of you are aware, former Michigan AD Dave Brandon proposed that Michigan and Ohio State be put into different divisions. What many do not know is that he also proposed not playing the game every year:
http://www.landgrantholyland.com/2015/8/25/9205221/john-u-bacon-endzone-review-michigan-football-dave-brandon-jim-harbaugh
LikeLike
What was Michigan’s record in The Game during former AD Dave Brandon’s tenure?
LikeLike
Dave Brandon presided over four Games, with the Wolverines going 1-3.
That’s actually an improvement, as they were 1-9 in the decade before his tenure.
LikeLike
So, after reading the 450+ pages, what else did we learn?
* Dave Brandon wanted to pitch a 16 team Big Ten, but broken down in a way that would nuke the idea of an actual schedule. From the book: ” ..Dave says, “I’ve got this great idea! Expand the Big Ten into 16 teams, eight a side, and break those down into groups of four, A, B, C and D, that just play each other. After the third game, you reshuffle the deck, and the top teams play each other, and the second teams play each other, and so on.”. It was, surprise, not well received.
* Speaking of bad ideas, in the throes of Big Ten divisional realignment, Dave Brandon proposed that the Ohio State/Michigan game be occasionally moved to October, or in some cases, not played at all. He also proposed that Ohio State and Michigan be in different Big Ten divisions.
At least he was innovative enough to consider pods. Other people have talked about having flex schedules, but generally just for the last game. Doing it for 5-6 games is way too much.
Moving The Game to October is a terrible idea. Moving it around the calendar from year to year is even worse. Not playing it in some years might get the B10 sued by Disney for removing the most valuable game from the inventory.
Personally I favored keeping OSU and MI in separate divisions, so I won’t criticize him for that. Of all the things mentioned, that is the one that is most defensible anyway.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13485792/top-10-games-college-football-playoff-committee-watching
The top 10 games the CFP committee will be watching and why, in chronological order.
Here are the games:
Auburn vs. Louisville (Sept. 5)
Oregon at Michigan State (Sept. 12)
Notre Dame at Clemson (Oct. 3)
Alabama at Georgia (Oct. 3)
USC at Notre Dame (Oct. 17)
Florida State at Clemson (Nov. 7)
Michigan State at Ohio State (Nov. 21)
Baylor at TCU (Nov. 27)
Alabama at Auburn (Nov. 28)
UCLA at USC (Nov. 28)
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/tag/_/name/2015-top-10-conference-games
The top 10 conference games for each P5 conference.
B10:
1. No. 5 Michigan State at No. 1 Ohio State, Nov. 21
2. No. 1 Ohio State at Michigan, Nov. 28
3. No. 20 Wisconsin at Nebraska, Oct. 10
4. No. 5 Michigan State at Michigan, Oct. 17
5. Penn State at No. 1 Ohio State, Oct. 17
6. No. 20 Wisconsin at Minnesota, Nov. 28
7. Michigan at Penn State, Nov. 21
8. Nebraska at Minnesota, Oct. 17
9. No. 5 Michigan State at Nebraska, Nov. 7
10. Rutgers at Penn State, Sept. 19
Only 1 crossover game (MSU @ NE).
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/football/college-football-media-roundtable-part-ii-programming-and-scheduling.html
A media roundtable on CFB scheduling and programming. I found most of it interesting, but this seemed potentially relevant here:
4. Another year, another occasion to ask this question: If you’re at Fox Sports 1, what should you do to attempt to become more competitive as a college football broadcaster — you get 3 items to recommend, and you cannot rub a genie lamp and/or wish for additional items.
Terry Johnson:
1) DON’T TRY TO REPLICATE COLLEGE GAMEDAY. Your top competitor got to where it was because it’s created a unique service that people are interested in. Any attempt you make to clone that success is just going to make people say, “They’re just copying GameDay.” Instead, innovate and create a product that’s so unique that it pulls people away from ESPN.
2) To make the product unique, go deeper into every game that’s on your schedule. Be sure to bring in plenty of former players and coaches to discuss X’s and O’s for every contest on the docket, especially the smaller conferences. This will help you lure hardcore football fans from ESPN, many of whom have complained that the show is more “fluff” and less football these days.
3) See Mr. Yoder’s first point. That would level the playing field almost immediately.
Matt Zemek:
1) FS1, notice how fans love ESPN’s MAC Wednesdays and Sun Belt Tuesdays? Pursue those slots in the future for the conferences you broadcast. Try to go away from head-to-heads with ESPN’s featured Thursday night games. Go for more games in which you get a broadcast window mostly or entirely to yourself.
This leads to:
2) Breakfast football on Saturdays. Of course a C-USA school such as Old Dominion would love to showcase its program with a 10 a.m. local time game which you could air opposite GameDay on ESPN. People would tune in. It’s football.
3) Talk to Larry Scott and the Pac-12. Make a game in Australia or Tokyo happen. Be aggressive in pursuing a game that would run somewhere from 1 to 3 in the morning. Talk to people in Europe about a game that could run at 8 Eastern overseas. Be the network which trots out a college football season-opening marathon from late Thursday night through late Friday morning in week one of the season. Make a splash. Use game inventory to make more of an impression on viewers; don’t think that talk-fests or personalities are your ticket to a better future.
Matt Yoder:
1) Write a blank check to the Big Ten. The Big Ten is the last big fish out there as far as media rights go into the next decade. Get those rights exclusively and you’re immediately a player in college sports. Split them with ESPN and you’re still on the periphery. It’s going to cost a lot, but it’s something FS1 should really try to do with all their might to establish themselves.
2) Be innovative in your scheduling. Viewership is driven by live sporting events and right now, FS1’s college football options are often way down the pecking order on Saturdays for viewers. So what can you do? Go where the competition ain’t. Early morning football, Wednesday night football, late night football. Whatever you can do to schedule a game that’s the only one in town, do that.
3) You said I couldn’t ask for more wishes, right? And I can’t buy the College Football Playoff from ESPN and trade it for Fox News? Dang…
Kevin Causey:
1) Fire Colin “Blowhard” Cowherd. Seriously, that guy is awful. He’s a talking head and isn’t going to add anything to their college football coverage. I realize he hasn’t even had a show yet, but is he REALLY going to bring fans to their product?
2) Hire Lou Holtz and Mark May. This goes against my Colin Cowherd stance, but Fox should sign these guys and give them a “College Football Final” type show. Many complained about these two over at ESPN, but I would wager that casual fans liked them a lot more than what I perceive to be a vocal minority. May is still with ESPN/ABC, but if Fox could get these two guys in a wrap-up show, I think it could grab some decent rating compared to what FOX is used to getting in that time slot.
3) Do a show that focuses on detailed analysis of games. ESPN flies through games on their wrap-up shows. Fans are lucky to see 30 to 45 seconds of their game on TV. Take the big five conferences and devote more time to discussing the games and showing highlights from them. Essentially… provide more steak than sizzle.
Bart Doan:
More confessions: I’ve never watched more than 5 minutes of Fox Sports 1 pregame coverage, and the 5 minutes was total accident. But if they wanted my viewership, here you go:
1) Fan Casts: Three trivia questions over the course of their pregame programming, answered correctly, entered into a drawing to call a game from the booth … live … with a fan of the rival team, and it goes on a FSR channel. The name of the game right now is interactivity. Everyone has a voice and they want to use it, right or wrong. Can you imagine a Michigan and Ohio State or an Alabama and Auburn fan in the booth calling their rivalry games and on social media talking at the same time? Wish I had the money to get something like this started.
2) Friday Night/Saturday Morning Games: both windows are totally untapped. I went in above on how Friday is a gold mine waiting to be tapped. So is Saturday morning. Folks got so excited with the games in Ireland because … hell … you wake up and football is on. Why do you think the NFL is experimenting so hard in London? It’s another window to dominate, weekend mornings. Follow the NFL’s lead.
3) Buy the Pac-12 Network and hype that conference, a la ESPN and the SEC. The Pac-12 is on the come. It’s quietly been the best conference in college football the last few seasons overall, and the Pac-12 Network’s odd self-immolation strategy isn’t working. FS1 should purchase the whole damn thing, get it on a main cable package a la the Big Ten Network (which they own 51 percent of) and the SEC Network, and raise the profile of that conference. There will be many playoff-influencing games in that conference over the next several years. Get on board now.
LikeLike
They could also promote the natural tie-ins between the PAC and the B1G. Reviving the once-interesting now-defunct idea of more PAC/B1G interconference play would help, too.
LikeLike
Fox could also improve their camera crews. Everything about the production except the announcers is weaker than ESPN. Now that ESPN has finally gotten rid of Musberger, they might be at risk of weaker announcing too.
LikeLike
2) Friday Night/Saturday Morning Games: both windows are totally untapped. I went in above on how Friday is a gold mine waiting to be tapped. So is Saturday morning. Folks got so excited with the games in Ireland because … hell … you wake up and football is on. Why do you think the NFL is experimenting so hard in London? It’s another window to dominate, weekend mornings. Follow the NFL’s lead.
Might as well program for sundays with this line of thinking
Friday = high school football
Saturday = college football
Sunday = pro football
LikeLike
I had the exact same thought about Friday nights. I know it’s a regional thing, but HS football is a religion in several major areas (TX, OH, etc). I’d hate to see CFB on TV destroy Friday night crowds for HS games.
LikeLike
The fervor may vary by region, but the conflict/forced choice is the same everywhere.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The one guy Zemek either doesn’t know much about the time zones or forgot what he wrote for #2 by the time he did #3.
Have a 10AM Old Dominion game to steal viewers from Game Day, and have a Pac12 game in Australia or Japan at 1 to 3 in the morning?
What not play those Aus/Japan Pac12 games in the evening local time, so you could show them at 9AM eastern (6AM pacific) and get about 10X more fans to watch live football than Old Dominion would attract?
LikeLike
Gee, Frank. I don’t know. Your sources haven’t been great in the past. Take, for example, this one:
http://frankthetank.me/2011/02/07/you-cant-always-get-what-you-want-aggies/
LikeLike
http://www.wsj.com/articles/at-auburn-athletics-and-academics-collide-1440635278
Now we know who really runs Auburn.
In 2013, Auburn University’s curriculum review committee took up the case of a small, unpopular undergraduate major called public administration. After concluding that the major added very little to the school’s academic mission, the committee voted to eliminate it.
But according to internal documents and emails reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, the committee’s decision was ultimately overruled by top administrators after it met significant opposition from another powerful force on campus: Auburn’s athletic department.
In addition to meeting with the school’s provost to urge him to spare public administration, the documents show, top athletic officials also offered to use athletic department funds, if necessary, to help pay its professors and support staff. Gary Waters, Auburn’s senior associate athletic director for academic services, wrote in an email in January 2013 that athletics had made “similar investments in academic programs during the last few years,” although in those cases, he added, “it has not been publicized.”
In the fall semester of 2013, more than half of the roughly 100 students majoring in public administration were athletes, records show, including nearly all of the top stars on the Auburn football team, which would win the Southeastern Conference title and play in the national-championship game. “If the public administration program is eliminated, the [graduation success rate] numbers for our student-athletes will likely decline,” a December 2012 internal athletic department memo said.
An Auburn spokesman said that while various groups may provide input on curriculum decisions, the “athletic department has not improperly influenced academic decision-making.” The school said athletics has donated money and other resources to help several academic programs over the years, “but public administration is not one of them.”
…
In early 2012, documents show, a panel performing a review of the Auburn political science department, which oversees public administration, expressed doubt that the major “contributes a great deal to the Department’s education mission.” In May, provost Timothy Boosinger sent a memo supporting a proposal to suspend the major by the end of the next school year.
In August, according to documents, the political science faculty voted 13-0 to remove public administration as an active major. The following March, Auburn’s academic program review committee, the final faculty body to review such proposals, voted 10-1 to place the major on “inactive status.”
But even as the proposal was zooming toward final approval, the athletic department had begun a campaign to reverse it. In February 2013, Waters, the department’s academic officer, sent an email to Jay Jacobs, the athletic director, that said it was “extremely important” that they plead their case with Boosinger and Auburn president Jay Gogue as soon as possible. On April 9, Waters and Jacobs met with Boosinger. Gogue wasn’t present.
After the meeting, Boosinger’s position on the future of public administration softened. In a June email to Gerry Gryski, then the chairman of the political science department, he said there would be no action taken on the major until the College of Liberal Arts had appointed a new dean. In September, when Patricia Duffy, the chairwoman of Auburn’s curriculum committee, asked the provost’s office for an update, she received an email that said: “The Provost and the Dean have agreed to keep the Public Administration program open.”
In an interview this week, Gryski said he was unaware that the athletic department had offered money to help keep the major open. “I’m searching for a word here,” he said. “It’s unbelievable. It’s incomprehensible.”
…
Auburn said the athletic department has contributed to the school’s academic side in the past by endowing professorships and donating $1.5 million to the College of Liberal Arts for the marching band. It once funded three years of a startup program in health and fitness for the kinesiology school and provided an adjunct professor to teach two classes in the journalism school, among other investments.
Public administration majors account for less than 1% of Auburn’s undergraduate student body. But in the fall semester of 2013, documents show, 51% of the 111 students pursuing the degree were athletes. Among them were the football team’s starting quarterback and running back, its leading wide receiver and the three defensive players who led the team in interceptions, tackles and sacks. At the time the athletic department learned of the plan to close the major, Auburn’s football team was coming off its worst season in a half-century and had just fired its coach. The following season, the team would win the Southeastern Conference and lose to Florida State in the national-championship game.
This February, in response to a question from Auburn’s faculty senate, Boosinger asked the school’s institutional research office to examine enrollment data for athletes. The report showed that 26 football players, or 32% of the 2014 team, were majoring in public administration. In May, documents show, Boosinger appointed an internal committee to review these enrollment trends and make recommendations about what actions might be appropriate.
LikeLike
That’s really bad. But the worst part is that the athletic department is funding that particular department to keep it open for its athletes. That ought to be an NCAA violation of some sort.
In any event it violates the spirit of the NCAA.
LikeLike
Hope aTm and Mizzu are enjoying their new academic neighborhood.
LikeLike
A&M is tied with Auburn and SMU for 2nd place all time in major violations. They are at home.
Sad part is all 3 of those are really pretty good schools. General consensus around here is that Auburn is stronger than Alabama.
LikeLike
bullet – looking at the NCAA database for major violations in this century, nine of the Big XII’s ten members have been hit with 16 major violations. Furthernore, the B-12 is home to three of the four 3-time major violators since 2000 (Baylor, West Virginia, and Oklahoma!, along with the ACC’s GA Tech).
Here’s a breakdown of P-5 conferences major violations this century.
ACC: 5 schools, 8 violations
B1G: 11 schools, 15 violations
B-12: 9 schools, 16 violations
P-12: 8 schools, 13 violations
SEC: 11 schools, 17 violations
Auburn and A&M haven’t been on probation this century.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Its really sad when they had all those articles about Slive and everyone emphasized how the first thing he did was tell the schools to quit turning each other in. I was just stunned that was so openly touted as one of his accomplishments. And it wasn’t just one article. It wasn’t that half the schools were on probation when he got there and he got them to clean things up, it was that he got them to quit turning each other in.
LikeLike
Yep, A&M and Mizzou surely regret leaving behind a conference with schools like Baylor that just exude integrity.
LikeLike
Alan, do you have a site you can link this P5 data from?
LikeLike
vincent – here’s the link.
https://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/miSearch
LikeLike
About 2008 or 2009, Auburn came very close to losing its regional accreditation, which by law would have at least temporarily expelled it from the SEC (conference by-laws require members to be accredited institutions). I would not be surprised to see this come up for review again, and if the board says enough is enough, expect all hell to break loose. As it should.
LikeLike
Much like the situation at North Carolina, this is not a situation that will lead to loss of accreditation, however the opposing fans would wish it to be so.
LikeLike
5 straight days of games with B10 teams next week.
No other conference can say that.
LikeLike
Let’s talk about Houston again…
http://watchdog.org/235163/college-pay/
LikeLike
Oh, and in case you missed it, the Big Ten announced its 2015-2016 conference men’s and women’s basketball schedules yesterday. With the Terrapin men rated the B1G preseason favorite and the women coming off back-to-back Final Fours and a 21-0 conference record last year, College Park is ready — men https://mail.aol.com/38947-111/aol-6/en-us/Lite/MsgRead.aspx?folder=NewMail&uid=32400071&seq=62&searchIn=none&searchQuery=&start=0&sort=received&sortDir=descending, and women https://mail.aol.com/38947-111/aol-6/en-us/Lite/MsgRead.aspx?folder=NewMail&uid=32400327&seq=3&searchIn=none&searchQuery=&start=0&sort=received&sortDir=descending.
Oh, and at noon next Thursday, the Maryland Dairy at the student union unveils its newest ice cream flavor — Brenda’s Peanut Butter Frese. Most B1G fans probably don’t know the name of their school’s women’s basketball coach, much less name an ice cream after them.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25283362/illinois-has-fired-coach-tim-beckman
IL has fired Tim Beckman for mistreatment of players.
Thomas said that during a briefing with external reviewers, he learned of efforts on Beckman’s part to “deter injury reporting and influence medical decisions that pressured players to avoid or postpone medical treatment and continue playing despite injuries.”
Bill Cubit will be the interim coach.
LikeLike
Beckman will not receive the $3.1 million remaining on the last two years of his original five-year contract or the $743,000 called for if his contract had been bought out.
LikeLike
Watching the press conference on BTN, and I haven’t heard the phrase “at this point in time” used so frequently since the Watergate hearings. What a mess. Sorry for you, Frank.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, too. But maybe it’s the start of a movement upward for the program.
LikeLike
U$C played much more inspired for coach Ogeron immediately after Kiffin got canned.
LikeLike
I have despised him from the moment he sent his entire coaching staff to PSU to ‘recruit’ Nitts! Good riddance to a low life pos! Illinois will be better without him.
LikeLike
And when asked about it at Big Ten media day, he very defiantly said no one on his staff had set one foot on PSU’s campus. The next day reports came out that Illini coaches were in State College, he admitted it but said they were off campus calling players. I agree good riddance.
LikeLike
While we are on the subject of Illinois administrators resigning, UI’s provost announced Monday that he would be stepping down as a result of an email scandal.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-university-of-illinois-provost-20150824-story.html
That makes the Chancellor, Provost and FB coach all fired in the past few weeks.
LikeLike
LSU’s OC Cam Cameron diagnosed with prostate cancer. Will coach this season.
http://theadvocate.com/sports/lsu/13299862-128/source-lsu-offensive-coordinator-cam
LSU will have a press conference in a few minutes.
LikeLike
Sounds good. Says he’s free of the cancer now.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2015/08/21/stanford-athletics-ad-bernard-muir-on-cost-of-attendance-plans-for-obannon-mens-basketball-and-more/#more-40378
Stanford’s AD:
Establishing post-eligibility trust funds (of a maximum of $5,000 annually) if the O’Bannon injunction is ultimately upheld by the 9th circuit court of appeals: “We’re not necessarily going to do that. We’re going to stop and pause.”
(My guess is the 9th circuit overturns the injunction and this becomes a non-issue. But if the ruling is upheld and every other Power 5 school allocates $5,000 for each football and men’s basketball player for the use of his name, image and likeness, will Stanford really be the one holdout? Would be fascinating to watch.)
LikeLike
The professional sport mind set of writers…
Why would Wilner not be asking how many other schools are of a similar mind?
LikeLike
Notre Dame claims there are a number. It would be really hard to walk away from all that money live the Ivies did. I think only private schools would do it. Hard to see Notre Dame doing it. Stanford could afford to, but they would have no place for their broad athletic program. Most likely would be ACC privates. They could form a nice league in the east, possibly pilfering some of the Big East.
LikeLike
(edit-not that the Ivies were walking away from that many $ at the time, but they walked away from the big time and the attendance at Yale, Harvard, Princeton and Penn is tiny compared to what it used to be).
LikeLike
They didn’t turn down offered money. They chose not to chase it by altering their athletics structure. If ESPN offered them billions to broadcast Ivy games I don’t believe they would be required to decline, only that the games conform to the Ivy rules.
My devils advocate question is: what would happen if most of D1 adopted Ivy rules? Are all Michigan, Stanford, UT, USC, PSU, etc fans and alums suddenly going to transfer lifetime loyalties to the new semi-pro minor league? I wonder if there isn’t a threshold number that would keep current interest levels in spite of the change in scholarship eligibility. The coaches, facilities, support structures would remain the same. Only change – a “return” to a clearly STUDENT athlete system. Would OSU/Mich. or the weekenders in Cali, or the RRR suddenly lose their interest?
Money follows fan interest, and as long as the competitive balance isn’t seriously disrupted among a large enough number of participating schools I see no reason there would be a significant change in broadcast events, or the income generated.
You might lose a few current games, because you’d have to ban playing those choosing to adopt the semi-pro model.
LikeLike
But I can’t see that ruling holding. It absolutely makes no sense. Either they have the right to negotiate and get paid or they don’t. An arbitrary $5,000 cap is extreme judicial activism. She was just legislating the result she wanted. Overall, I was surprised how ignorant she was of college sports during the trial. Doesn’t seem to be a very good judge either.
Appealing has the risk the relatively minimal 5k cap could be lifted, but I just don’t see how that could last indefinitely. It would be challenged.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25284105/baylor-president-ken-starr-calls-for-independent-review-of-sam-ukwuachu-case
In an ironic twist, Ken Starr (Baylor’s president) is calling for an independent counsel to be hired to investigate Baylor’s athletic department. I wonder what the definition of “is” is now.
LikeLike
A pro sports team is looking at owning and delivering content, forgoing the usual TV partners. Possibly a negotiating ploy, but from a guy who paid 2B (for the Clippers!) I wouldn’t be completely shocked.
LikeLike
Forgot link:
http://www.si.com/nba/2015/08/28/steve-ballmer-los-angeles-clippers-tv-deal-streaming-service
LikeLike
Frank,
Recently, I made a post touching on Michigan State’s rise from a program that had been average for most of the past 40 years (with a few good to great seasons mixed in), to the top of college football with a B1G title and back to back “New Year’s Six” bowl game victories. The Spartans are poised for a run for the playoff this year and recruiting is at a historically high level. I wondered if there were any other B1G teams with similarly average football histories capable of making a similar jump. I came up with Rutgers, Maryland, and your Illinois Fighting Illini. I am curious to hear your thoughts on where Illinois goes from here with regard to a new coach, what are the realistic expectations for the program, and whether you think Illinois can make a MSU type jump?
LikeLike
I think the right list is Illinois and Minnesota.
Rutgers is decidedly not “a program that has been average for most of the last 40 years.” They have been terrible for most of the last 40 years. In fact, 40 years ago they were playing the equivalent of a quasi-Ivy League schedule.
Before they left the ACC, Maryland ranked third in the number of conference championships — and #1 is FSU, which accumulated all of its championships since 1992. Before that date, Clemson and Maryland were the ACC’s two “kings” (if you could use that term). But Maryland’s challenge is that they have to compete in the same division as Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, and Michigan State. It’s hard to see them making a big jump against that competition.
In the B1G’s weak West division, almost anything is possible. The Gophers and Illini rank #3–4 (after M and OSU) in the number of Big Ten championships won. The Gophers also claim seven national championships (none since 1960), and the Illini five (none since 1951). Those are the two schools that it is easiest to imagine making an MSU-type run.
LikeLike
Average or horrible history is not the point of the posting. UMd and RU have something invaluable. They both are the only P5 school in a state that produces very large numbers of top quality high school football talent.
RU may never get the majority of those players. If they ever did get those recruits, they would have a top 20 team every year. In addition, NYC produces a few top players every year. RU is about 200 miles closer to New York City than any other P5 school.
When you talk about football history, do not forget that not that many years ago, the RU schedule was Princeton, Colgate, Lehigh, Lafayette, etc. That is hardly the road to being a football power. RU certainly did not rise to the challenge in the Big East.
Will RU jump up in the football world in 10 years or so from now, after RU has been getting full B1G money for a while? Maybe, or maybe it will never happen. The question is potential.
UMd is in a similar position. There are very fertile recruiting grounds in MD and DC. Can UMd become the next Michigan State? The potential is there. but is it likely?
LikeLike
Average or horrible history is not the point of the posting.
The original poster made it the point, by asserting that Michigan State was “a program that had been average for most of the past 40 years (with a few good to great seasons mixed in),” and looking for “similarly average football histories capable of making a similar jump.”
Rutgers does not have such a history. We all know that Rutgers is in the middle of a terrific recruiting state, but they have no history of capitalizing on it. History isn’t destiny, but that was the question he asked.
Maryland, on the other hand, does have such a history, so they’ve shown they can do it. The trouble is, they did it in a much weaker league. In the B1G’s current configuration, they’d have to surpass Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Penn State. Not all of those schools are going to be powerhouses every year, but the odds are that at least one or two of them will always be.
Rutgers faces a similar problem, without the benefit of having ever done it historically.
History does matter in college football, which is the reason why the same small handful of teams stay at or near the top, year after year after year. Every once in a while, a great program is created out of nowhere, as Bobby Bowden did at Florida State. But it doesn’t happen often.
LikeLike
Demographics also aided Bowden: Florida’s rapid growth as a state, desegregation enabling the recruitment of black players, the South’s football mania, etc.
LikeLike
Interesting article in Bloomberg on the plateauing of the sports rights
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-31/live-sports-no-longer-tv-s-holy-grail-in-u-s-as-ratings-peak
You have to wonder if the Big Ten is at risk of missing the boat on the sports rights bubble
LikeLike
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Included in a skinny bundle is…the most expensive sports channel?
They are equating alternative streamed viewing with absense of viewers, simple because they are uncomfortable with trying to track something newly important.
There may be some bumps in the road (as the road is being designed and built on the fly), but the product traveling that road remains valuable. I’m not terribly concerned long term.
LikeLike
How important is it that Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska start playing better re the next contract? Kings are kings, but better records are necessary for national interest. While Wisconsin and Michigan State have certainly helped the B1G for ratings in recent years, and much tho I like both programs, they fall short in generating national interest. Now if they beat Alabama and Oregon…………………….
LikeLike
Competition for the eyeballs is a significant factor. Everybody among the P5 is on almost all the time. That wasn’t true just 4 years ago. So the market is getting more segmented for all but the biggest games.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Wouldn’t you agree that college sports are naturally segmented? That’s the nature of conferences and regional loyalties. Predicting years in advance what games might rise to high national interest is virtually impossible, meaning those holding rights to a larger number of games will still wield leverage.
LikeLike
It may mean you have more of the bigger games, but you still have to split it more ways. More total $ does not necessarily mean more total $ per school.
But what is happening is that you can get your own team nearly every week. That means you are less likely to watch, say Notre Dame-Boston College, than you would have before.
And that’s a fairly recent change. What impact that has hasn’t been built into the contracts except to the extent ESPN and Fox were anticipating it.
LikeLike
“But what is happening is that you can get your own team nearly every week. That means you are less likely to watch, say Notre Dame-Boston College, than you would have before.”
So…the first increase viewership of “lesser” teams does not increase value. But if those same viewers watch “big brands” it results in an increase?
I think it’s close to a zero sum game (except when D2 schools move up and dilute) as to the amount of available games, and the last few years have, by basically making D1 universally viewable has increased the pool of viewers to include fans of all schools. Control of a larger number of games increases likelihood of having more premium games, which is leverage for increases when bids for broadcast rights are requested/offered.
LikeLike
“That means you are less likely to watch, say Notre Dame-Boston College, than you would have before.”
I don’t watch only one game a week.
What it means to me is I need to figure out how to watch an additional game. Fortunately the country is very wide. Four mainland time zones and varied start times give a 14+ hour Saturday viewing block. Additional TVs and alternative digital platforms pretty much assure I’m not going to miss much I’m interested in even if the games overlap.
LikeLike
Whether you watch 1, 2 , 3 or 4, if you are watching your own team, you are less likely to watch another game showing at the same time. Before, maybe you watch while keeping an eye on the score or listening on radio.
LikeLike
Whether I’m watching one or the other doesn’t matter. As long as I’m watching I’m adding value. Fox didn’t jump at the option to become 51% BTN ownership and extend the length of the agreement because of all the premier match ups. You underestimate the cumulative value of non king games.
LikeLike
frug,
“Interesting article in Bloomberg on the plateauing of the sports rights”
From the article:
The ratings stagnation is partly because there’s just too much to watch, Venkateshwar said. The amount of sports content has more than tripled in the past decade while the time people spent watching TV increased just 6.4 percent, he said.
…
To be sure, televised sports are still enormously popular — especially when two big teams play each other — letting networks that carry them charge higher advertising rates. Sports ad revenue rose 8.2 percent a year between 2009 and 2013, more than double the 4 percent increase for the TV industry as a whole, according to Bloomberg Intelligence, which cited ESPN data.
…
While ratings may be peaking, sports aren’t expected to get any cheaper. TV rights are projected to rise 9 percent a year to $19.3 billion in 2018, according to a study last year by PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Most people wish their paycheck would “plateau” like that for a while. And note that TV rights will rise by about the same amount that advertising has been increasing.
I’d also point out that it primarily talks about pro sports. They may have finally reached a maximum saturation level, but that doesn’t mean CFB has. It also doesn’t mean the B10 has missed the boat. Maybe the rights won’t keep ballooning every year, but there is zero evidence of rights losing value. I believe college sports have been undervalued for a long time. At some point that will stop being true and then the growth will slow to a more normal pace. Maybe we’ve reached that point.
As with most things, cord cutting will quickly get the low hanging fruit and then slow down. This is also just TV rights. As people cut the cord, some of them still watch sports. And as more people watch sports online, magically companies will find a way to monetize that appropriately. The key is the total value of the rights deals, not which medium pays what.
LikeLike
Alan,
Saw the show with Kirk and others picking LSU for the 2nd playoff.
What are your thoughts on the Tigers this fall?
LikeLike
duff – I fell good about 21 of the 22 positions. If Harris or Jennings can just play up to a Jordan Jefferson level (which isn’t saying a lot), the Tigers will be real good.
LikeLike
Actual realignment news. Coastal Carolina is moving up to FBS and joining the Sun Belt.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/8/31/9236945/coastal-carolina-sun-belt-conference-move
LikeLike
Think it was a mistake for the AAC, MAC and to a lesser extent, MWC, not to think bigger and get bigger quicker back when everything changed. And for the CUSA to add move-ups. There’s a dilution of talent with all these new FBS schools.
New FBS members:
2017-Coastal Carolina
2015-UNCC
2014-Appalachian St., Georgia Southern, Old Dominion
2013-Georgia St.
2012-UMass, South Alabama, Texas St., UTSA
There could have easily been only a G4. Instead, the Sun Belt will have 6 of 12 as move-ups since 2012 with two others, NMSU and Idaho, affiliates in the west. And the CUSA will have 4 of 14 moving up since 2012 (counting UAB who dropped and will re-instate).
LikeLike
CUSA arguably might have invited enough of the rest of the Sunbelt, instead of pursuing some of their own FCS call-ups for the Sunbelt to be shut down (or turned into an Olympic sports conference, a la the WAC), but its is not clear that those moves would have been in the interests of the specific schools remaining in the CUSA after the AAC refilled … Southern Miss, UAB, Marshall, Rice and UTEP, and after the first set of AAC raids but before the second, Tulane, ECU and Tulsa.
The four Sun Belt schools that were in place for the whole ride were Arkansas State, Louisiana, ULM, and Troy. And, of course, WKU was part of those making Sunbelt expansion plans after the first wave that was then invited to CUSA after the second wave.
While South Alabama transitioned to FBS in 2012, they had started their FB program in 2009 with an eye to moving up in 2013, so were a move already in motion when the wave of conference realignment hit the Sunbelt. And Texas State decided on starting a push to FBS in 2007, so its move in 2013 could also be seen as something already on track before the wave of conference realignment hit.
It doesn’t seem that CUSA could have done it in the first wave without foreknowledge of the second wave … even setting aside whether it would have been in the interest of Southern Miss, UAB, Marshall, Rice, UTEP, Tulane, ECU and Tulsa to do so, and setting aside the failed merger with the MWC, its not clear that they could have added enough Sunbelt schools fast enough to do a “WAC” on the Sun Belt.
And it does not seem like it would have been in their interest. For the eastern CUSA schools after the first wave of AAC raids, Old Dominion and Charlotte seem to be moves more in their interest than Troy or USA, and for the western schools, having Tulane, LA Tech, Louisiana and ULM would seem to be overkill.
But the MAC? The survival of the Sun Belt is all about CUSA’s decisions in the two waves of raids by the old Big Least. The MAC on its own being more aggressive about expansion would have just meant more FCS call-ups. The only way that the MAC could have contributed to reducing the number of FCS call-ups would have been to not call-up UMass, which then involves the foresight to know that Temple was going to get an invite to the old Big Least before it happened.
LikeLike
Bruce – There is no such school named “Louisiana”. The former Southwest Louisiana Institute, later known as the University of Southwestern Louisiana or USL, has long sought to be known as the University of Louisiana. Several years ago, they just started calling themselves Louisiana, but it takes an act of the legislature to re-name a state university. Later, one a Louisiana’s higher ed management boards (the board of state colleges and universities – basically every school without LSU or Southern in its name) sought to change its name to the University of Louisiana system. The legislature agreed to this change with the caveat that no school could call itself the University of Louisiana. If a school within that system wanted to change its name, it could only if two or more chose to do so, and ONLY if the name of the city in which it was located was also included in the new name. USL convinced Northeast Louisiana University to go along with them, so now we have the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and the University of Louisiana at Monroe. Everytime the Lafayette crowd refer to themselves as the University of Louisiana, Louisiana or U of L, they are violating state law.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/13560619/most-espn-experts-buckeyes-repeat
Picks from all of ESPN’s “experts” for the CFP. There’s also a link to all their conference champ predictions.
21 of 26 had OSU in the CFP (17 advanced them to the finals and 12 have them as champs), with the other 5 having MSU. Of those 5, 4 advanced MSU to the finals with 2 having them as champs. That’s 14 of 26 picking a B10 team to win it all. Of the 5 that picked MSU, 2 are U of M grads and a third is from MI.
They seem to prefer Auburn to AL about 2:1 with a few picking LSU, TAMU and UGA. There was also diversity in the ACC, B12 and P12. 3 people predicted 2 teams from 1 conference making it (1 B10, 1 B12 1 SEC). Nobody chose ND to make it.
Real football starts tomorrow. Woo hoo!
LikeLike
God Bless Lee Corso!
LikeLike
Pingback: Happy New Year: Season Opening Quick Hits on Sports TV Rights, Sun Belt Expansion and the Illini Coaching Dumpster Fire | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
Pingback: Oh, the Places You’ll Go! Where Big Ten Graduates Live and Conference Realignment | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT